addresses are available from other public sources and are posted publicly at the job site.”). In this day and age, “there are few facts that are not at one time or another divulged to another.” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 763, 109 S.Ct. 1468. In light of that reality, the Supreme Court has made clear that prior disclosure of a piece of information does not automatically terminate the subject individual’s privacy interest in nondisclosure. Id. at 763-64, 109 S.Ct. 1468. But to say that prior disclosure of information does not automatically terminate privacy interests is not to suggest that prior disclosure is irrelevant to the inquiry. On the contrary, the extent to which a fact is already public affects the significance of the privacy rights at stake. See id. at 763, 109 S.Ct. 1468 (<HOLDING>). Simply put, one cannot be said to have
holding that a private right of action exists holding that whether error in failing to ask a question about bias in favor of law enforcement testimony requires reversal hinges on such factors as the importance of the government agents testimony to the case as a whole the extent to which the question concerning the venire persons attitude toward government agents is covered in other questions  the extent to which the credibility of the government agentwitness is put into issue and the extent to which the testimony of the government agent is corroborated by nonagent witnesses internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing private right of action recognizing that the extent of the protection accorded a privacy right at common law rested in part on the degree of dissemination of the allegedly private fact and the extent to which the passage of time rendered it private holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea that section 24 fifth preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts