Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn'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 found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who 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 responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn 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 information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

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 stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn'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 found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who 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 responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn 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 information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

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 stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn'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 found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who 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 responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn 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 information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

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 stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn'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 found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who 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 responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn 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 information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

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 stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Zimmerman Counsel rejects the racism claim - MyFox Phoenix

(NewsCore) - a lawyer advises George Zimmerman - Florida the man who shot dead teenager Trayvon Martin in what he claims was legitimate defence - denied Friday that his client was a racist, but light little on what led to the fatal confrontation.

Martin, 17, was shot and killed on February 26 that he was walking in a gated community Sanford where he was staying with his father. Zimmerman claimed he acted in self-defence and was not arrested or charged, leading to a widespread outcry and protests.

Lawyer Craig Sonner said he had not discussed the details of the incident with Zimmerman, but denied allegations of a possible racial slur during a 911 call before Zimmerman and the African-American Martin came into contact.

"I do not think that he did make a racist remark," sound said on CNN, after admitting that he had not heard the call in question. He said that the fact that Zimmerman and his wife had guided children African Americans supported by belief that the young man of 28 years is not racist.

He said that he had advised Zimmerman to cooperate with the new investigation on the incident, launched demonstrations which began in Florida and spread as far as New York.

He welcomed these investigations and said, "we will look at the facts." The ultimate question is that a kind of fight took place. The ultimate question is "was it self-defense?" ?

His comments are come as Attorney of State of Florida Angela Corey - Thursday was appointed by Governor Rick Scott to conduct a new investigation - began gathering evidence in the case. A grand jury is planned to probe the shooting on 10 April, but Corey staff told WFTV Friday that a grand jury cannot be used in the case.

Lead attorney Bernie the Rionda said: "we will get to the truth, one way or another."

"We are going to do three things." First thing is all what has already been done. Second thing is to determine what needs to be done in our opinion. And then we will make a decision. ?

Corey on Jacksonville replaced local Attorney Norm Wolfinger in case and WFTV said that several sources have confirmed that the police had recommended the original charges of manslaughter against Zimmerman, but that Wolfinger had not acted on their advice.

The Rionda would not confirm the request, saying: "I will not confirm or deny anything."

Head of the Sanford police, Bill Lee, was cancelled Thursday, claiming that he had become a "distraction" to the investigation.

Scott also announced the creation of a working group to study how an incident as Martin's death can be avoided in the future, while the Department of Justice civil rights division is also investigating the incident.

The case also has a focus and criticism, the right to "Stand Your Ground" of Florida, that allows a person to use the deadly force when it is threatened, without trying to retreat.

Asked about the law Friday, former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush said, according to FOX News Channel, "I think it's a good idea to review the laws."

"In this particular case, based on my limited knowledge, it seems to me that this Act does not apply to this situation." Stand means that your stand your ground soil that does not chase after someone who has turned his back. ?

He has added, "with the grand jury investigation, investigation of the Ministry of Justice in place, the fact that the Chief of police took part, the process is in place today and we will have the facts shortly."

View the original article here