Washington ((CNN)) -A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the Federal Government publicly unveiled his HIV status.
In a 5-3 ruling decided the high court Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered by the Privacy Act."The Privacy Act does not allow for mental or emotional distress damages unambiguous and therefore does not waive the Government's sovereign immunity for such harms," wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the conservative majority.
Three liberal justices are separated, while a fourth, former Deputy Minister Elena Kagan, did not participate.Cooper said Wednesday In a statement that it was "disheartening that a majority of the Court of the Government side."
Cooper was a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. His condition worsened, he wants his expired medical certificate of his private pilot certificate and Aviator.In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.
"I was in bad shape, I don't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again."I discovered they were medical examination (exceptions) issue and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without disclosing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."
He received his new pilot certificate, but unknown to him, a joint initiative of the local-Federal called operation safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and the names and personal information of approximately 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potential medical unfit individuals who receive federal benefits were also compared.Cooper was one of four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a felony charge of a false message.
He was sentenced to probation and a fine, and his pilot certificate is revoked. Name of the former business executive is offered in a federal press release and later, by his persecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record."I had been able to say that (with) who I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to certain colleagues, family and friends," he said "and suddenly that was out of my control."
Cooper, which was eventually allowed to fly again, sued."I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took the responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it is turn of the Government to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did. "
A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the research of information exchange, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by prosecutors demanding.Because Cooper no claims for economic damages, such as lost wages or medical expenses made, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional damage" only not qualified and dismissed the process.
A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.During an hour of oral arguments last year the justices remained away from the specific claims of emotional damage created by Cooper, instead concentrating on what the law says about qualification for damage.
"The argument that you made--and I understand, that this is the Privacy Act and so it is exactly these kinds of damage that you would be concerned about--really cuts both ways," said Chief Justice John Roberts to Cooper's lawyer."What you are saying is that this (law) refers to a really big chunk of damage, because this is what the whole law was over," said Roberts. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the Government point: that if you are going to get that, you really need clearer" language in the law that the Government to some extent of a flood of hard-to-refute lawsuits would immunize.
The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the Government can collect and exchange information in the digital age makes the issue of liability of the privacy ripe for revision.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the Government Attorney pleads for the FAA. She said that the relevant provision of the Federal damage is similar to State tort claims which include both emotional and financial damage.
"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, humiliation, advances do not have, but this is terribly sad, anxious and nervous, and all the rest," said Ginsburg. "The law that is the reach of Congress, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary damages (monetary) live normal behavior that embarrassing, humiliates you, causes of mental distress. "Eric Feigin of the Ministry of Justice said the Privacy Act the language can be interpreted as damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish" making, but because the expression "actual" damages remains vague, that the Government should get the benefit of the doubt, said the event tilt in its favor.
"Just because a plaintiff can have a negative effect of the privacy violation, Feigin, ago" argued "does not mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's Attorney, during the hearing that his client information was made public and his name and HIV status still on a Federal Government database Posted are pointed. He also made a larger argument, that his client dilemma is one that may have implications for all Americans.
"Congress this Act the citizen confidence in their Government, and it made a solemn promise for u.s. citizens that in cases of intentional and deliberate violation, the United States is liable for actual damages to recover," said Cardozo. "Today, the Government argues that" actual damages "should be read in a way that makes this law virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise. "Cooper attended the public hearing at the Court and expressed optimism after which he would prevail.
"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," said Cooper at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do. "The case Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).
CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contributions to this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment