U.S. High Court Limits Privacy Act Suits to Actual Economic Harm

[Julian Englis]

Source: Bloomberg Businessweek

The U.S. Supreme Court, rejecting a claim by a California pilot who sought to conceal that he was HIV-positive, ruled that the government can be sued only for financial harm from violations of the federal Privacy Act.

In a 5-3 decision today, the justices said Stanmore Cooper couldn’t seek damages for mental or emotional distress.

Federal law “limits the government’s Privacy Act liability to harm that can be substantiated by proof of tangible economic loss,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

Cooper had sought damages for “humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, fear of social ostracism and other severe emotional distress” after the Social Security Administration shared information about his medical condition with the Federal Aviation Administration. HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, causes AIDS.

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-28/u-dot-s-dot-high-court-limits-privacy-act-suits-to-actual-economic-harm

[Lasher]

1. People used to ask, "Is is fascism yet?"

Nobody seems to be confused about that anymore.

[liam_laddie]

2. Proof that money-power is ALL that matters to the fascist 4+1 (and too many Americans as well)

"Tangible economic harm" - forget any other harm that isn't measurable by $$$. As if the non-tangible sphere
of reality doesn't exist...sick bastards!

[pinto]

3. Alito, et al made a real wrongheaded call, limiting liability to harm to purely economic harm, imo.

Sotomayor made a good point for the minority in the opinion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion, said “common sense” dictates that mental and emotional distress are “the primary, and often only, damages sustained as a result of an invasion of privacy.”

That said, iirc, the SSA and the FAA have the legal right to share info in the process of a medical disability claim, which Mr. Cooper had filed. A pre-filing disclosue was probably made prior to officially filing his claim. Then it would be the FFA's call on medical qualification to hold a pilot's license - which they would likely approve given the effectiveness of current HIV medications. They had already re-instated his license after an earlier suspension.

The FAA revoked Cooper’s private pilot’s license on grounds that he had lied on license applications that required him to disclose health issues and medications he was taking. Cooper pleaded guilty to one count of providing false information and was fined $1,000. The FAA subsequently reissued Cooper’s pilot license after a review of his medical records.

Still, Alito's decision doesn't seem at all appropriate or fair in the bigger picture.

[Sgent]

4. Its not obvious

a flight AME cannot approve anyone with HIV, and it has to go to FAA headquarter (4-6 months waiting time), and strongly depends on which drugs, etc.

For a Class I cert (airline) you cannot even take an antacid (PPI or H2 blocker), have to wait 48 hours before flying if you take an antibiotic, are grounded with diabetes, etc.

Although a quick search showed that people with HIV may be able to fly, its by no means a given.

[pinto]

5. Yeah, assumed there was a series of guidelines. Just didn't think it was cut 'n dried. And FAA call

What's AME?

[Sgent]

6. Aviation Medical Examiner

a physician who the FAA has designated to sign off on flight certificates.

[pinto]

7. Thanks (nt)

[cstanleytech]

8. I guess its time the federal law is updated then to cover this that would pretty much

render the decision null atleast for future cases.