Skip to main content

STARNES v. THREDUP INC

E.D. Pa.July 10, 2023No. 2:22-cv-04859
Defendant WinSkin Worx, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
442 Civil Rights: Employment
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Ashcraft and Skin Worx. While the court found a viable commercial appropriation claim, it held that injuries to psychological interests rather than economic interests in a property right are not compensable under Alabama's commercial-appropriation invasion-of-privacy tort.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** An employee named Starnes sued their former employer, Skin Worx Inc., and supervisor Ashcraft for invasion of privacy. Starnes claimed the company inappropriately used their likeness or identity for commercial purposes without permission, which falls under a legal concept called "commercial appropriation." **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in favor of the employer and supervisor, dismissing the case. While the judge acknowledged that Starnes had presented a valid claim for commercial appropriation, the court determined that Alabama law only allows workers to recover money damages when their property rights are violated in a way that causes actual financial harm. Since Starnes could only show psychological or emotional harm rather than concrete economic losses, they weren't entitled to compensation under Alabama's invasion of privacy laws. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling limits workers' ability to sue employers for misusing their image or identity in Alabama. Even if an employer inappropriately uses a worker's likeness for business purposes, employees may not be able to recover damages unless they can prove specific financial losses rather than just emotional distress. Workers in Alabama should be aware that privacy violations need to result in measurable economic harm to be legally actionable.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.