[person], as the result of conduct to which the reasonable [person] would strongly object.” Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 745 (emphasis added). Therefore, while an individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in nude photographs of herself or in her private medical information, she does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in discussing termination of her employment. See Lake, 582 N.W.2d at 235 (stating that “[o]ne’s naked body is ... generally known to others only by choice” and “is a type of privacy interest worthy of protection”); Swarthout, 632 N.W.2d at 745 (reversing summary judgment on an intrusion upon seclusion claim involving private medical information); Groeneweg v. Interstate Enterprises, Inc., No. A04-1290, 2005 WL 894768, at *6 (Minn.Ct.App. Apr. 19, 2005) (<HOLDING>). In Nelson, Rasmusson, and Kampschroer v.
holding that the driver of a borrowed car had the requisite legitimate expectation of privacy to support standing for fourth amendment purposes holding that the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with coworkers in which her termination was discussed holding bank clients had no legitimate expectation of privacy in banking information revealed to a third party holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that testimony of plaintiff and her coworkers regarding cause of her injury was pure conjecture