Right to Privacy: The Case of AMM v Spin Knit Limited [2013] KEELRC 573 (KLR)

 In the case of AMM v Spin Knit Limited [2013] KEELRC 573 (KLR), the claimant suffered an injury when he was attacked by thugs. Upon being discharged, he returned to work having been prescribed light duty but was still assigned heavy duty, resulting in him suffering further infection to his injuries. The employee attempted to seek compensation but the respondent refused to offer any assistance. Instead, the Respondent directed the claimant attend a mandatory HIV/AIDS test which he refused and was denied entry to the work place. He was thereafter terminated for non-attendance. The court found that the termination of the employee was improper as the respondent infringed on the claimant’s right to privacy.

 

Employers have a legitimate interest in ascertaining their employee’s health status to see if they are fit for their roles. However, this interest does not trump the employee’s right to privacy. The court in the case of AMM v Spin Knit Limited [2013] KEELRC 573 (KLR) held that where health status of the employee or the prospective employee has a bearing on the required qualifications or job specifications, it is sufficient for the employer to receive the doctor’s certificate of fitness without disclosing the full medical report that infringes the employee’s or prospective employee’s health status. An employer should highly restrict the disclosure of employees’ medical reports and hold them in high confidence that protects the employee’s privacy and therefore human dignity. An employer must not force an employee to undergo a medical examination or force the employee to present medical reports that expose the employee’s health status that the employee is entitled to hold in his or her privacy.