Walker

facts.”

3 In December 2010, Walker filed a separate lawsuit in state court for disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, essentially contending that for a period following the initiation of the original lawsuit, the City refused to reinstate him, although his doctors approved his return to work. Prior to filing the December 2010 complaint, Walker had sought and been denied permission from the district court to add those claims to the original action then pending in federal court. Walker subsequently voluntarily dismissed the second suit. 4 In denying the City‟s motion to dismiss the invasion of privacy claim, the court stated: “The Court‟s research reveals no California case law holding that a supervisor‟s dissemination of an employee‟s medical condition to his coworkers is a violation of a legally protected privacy interest. However, „since enactment of the privacy provision, the California Supreme Court has held that it protects one from the improper use of information which has been properly obtained,‟ and that „the right to control circulation of personal information is fundamental.‟ [Citations.] Furthermore, the „zones of privacy‟ created by the…