Employer ordered to pay damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and emotional harm
A Wellington-based transport company has been found to have unlawfully disclosed a truck driver’s personal information, leading to false rumors that he was a drug dealer.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal has ordered KAM Transport Limited (KAM) to pay $30,000 in damages to the former employee, Darren Cummings, for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings.
The Tribunal ruled that KAM interfered with Cummings’ privacy when it revealed details about his refusal to take a drug test in August 2020. This disclosure led to widespread speculation within the industry, culminating in false allegations about his character and professional reputation.
Cummings, who had worked as a truck driver for over 35 years, was randomly selected to take a drug test on August 26, 2020, alongside three other drivers. As per KAM’s policy, random drug testing was conducted to ensure workplace safety. Cummings refused the test, which under company rules constituted misconduct, leading to his suspension while a disciplinary process was initiated.
A few days later, on September 4, 2020, Cummings took a drug test independently, which came back clear, allowing him to return to work. However, despite this, rumors about his refusal to take the test had already circulated within the industry.
On September 7, 2020, while making a delivery to Martin Brower, a KAM client in Auckland, Cummings was confronted by a forklift driver who told him that she and others had “heard that he was a drug dealer and had been dismissed from his job”. Shocked by the accusation, Cummings denied the claims but felt deeply distressed and anxious on his journey back to Wellington.
Upon returning to Wellington, he learned from a colleague in Picton that another KAM employee, Jzaden Kremm, had told staff that Cummings had failed a drug test and left his job. This prompted Cummings to file a formal complaint with KAM management, demanding an investigation.
On September 17, 2020, Cummings attended a disciplinary meeting with Paul Fincham, KAM’s branch manager, and Anna Ramm, the company’s HR manager. He reported that a KAM employee had falsely told others he failed a drug test, constituting a breach of privacy.
KAM conducted an internal investigation but concluded that there was no evidence to support Cummings' claims. Dissatisfied, Cummings requested another meeting. At this meeting, an affidavit from Kremm revealed that Fincham had allegedly informed him that Cummings had refused a drug test on September 1, 2020. Fincham denied this, as did KAM’s Health and Safety Compliance Officer, Leyhanna Ottow.
Unable to restore trust in his employer, Cummings resigned immediately on December 14, 2020, citing his loss of confidence in the company.
Cummings later filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, which led to the Human Rights Review Tribunal hearing in August 2024.
The Tribunal ruled that KAM had breached Cummings’ privacy under Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 11, which restricts the unauthorized disclosure of personal information. It found that Cummings' refusal to take the drug test had been leaked internally and that this information was later disseminated outside the company, leading to false rumors.
In its decision, the Tribunal stated:
“We consider the proximity of the incident at Martin Brower is such as to make it implausible that there had not been a prior disclosure of Mr. Cummings’ personal information, a disclosure which we find could only have come from KAM.”
“The comments made him aware that his privacy had been breached and this caused him to feel shocked, confused and humiliated, as well as hot, clammy and sick in his stomach.”
“Given Mr. Cummings’ seniority as a driver, and the implications of the disclosure for his professional and personal reputation, it is entirely understandable that he felt diminished in this way.”
Cummings originally sought $295,366 in damages for lost earnings, covering a period of 195 weeks from December 2020 to September 2024. However, the Tribunal denied this claim, ruling that his employment had not been rendered untenable by the privacy breach and that KAM had actively encouraged him to remain in his role.
Despite this, the Tribunal determined that Cummings had suffered significant emotional distress, stating that he had become “a shell of the confident, strong person I was.” The Tribunal acknowledged that the false allegations and KAM’s failure to properly address the breach had severely impacted his mental health.
As a result, the Tribunal ordered KAM to pay $30,000 in damages for humiliation, loss of dignity, and emotional harm.
Additionally, a formal declaration was issued, confirming that KAM had interfered with Cummings’ privacy by disclosing his personal information without consent.
The Tribunal ruled that:
KAM Transport Limited interfered with Cummings’ privacy by unlawfully disclosing personal information.
KAM must pay $30,000 in damages for emotional distress.
Cummings' request for lost wages was denied as he was not forced to resign.
This case highlights the serious consequences of workplace privacy breaches, particularly when confidential employee information is improperly shared, leading to harmful rumors.
