Melissa Ignat, an employee of the real estate division of Yum! Brands, the parent company of Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC, suffered from a bipolar disorder and, consequently, missed several weeks of work in 2008. Upon returning to work from her medical leave, Ignat claimed, her supervisor had informed the entire department of her medical condition. As a result, she claimed that she was “shunned” by her coworkers. One coworker asked her supervisor if Ignat would “go postal” at work. Ignat filed suit under California common law, which prohibits invasion of privacy by the public disclosure of private facts. Yum! Brands asked the court for summary judgment, arguing that California case law had applied only to disclosures in writing. Ignat’s allegations described verbal incidents, with no written documentation evidencing the disclosure of private medical information. Should the court extend the application of the law to cover verbal disclosures, given the ease of communicating non-written information in the 21st century, or should it follow precedent, even if it is (arguably) outdated?