Fedweek Legal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently reversed a district court, and ordered a trial, on behalf of a postal employee whose medical condition was disclosed by his supervisor to his co-workers. The employee, identified as John Doe, requested several weeks of leave for an AIDS-related illness. Doe’s supervisor instructed him to fill out a leave slip and to submit medical documentation explaining the nature of his illness. The letter also included forms for applying for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. Doe applied for FMLA leave and provided the required medical documentation. Several of Doe’s co-workers later informed him that they learned from his supervisor that he was HIV positive.

The court ruled that Doe had provided sufficient evidence to warrant a trial on whether the supervisor had wrongfully disclosed private medical documentation. The court readily found that the Privacy Act prohibited nonconsensual disclosure of confidential information retrieved from a protected record, and that Doe’s leave application constituted such a record.

The next issue was whether the disclosure also constituted a violation of the Rehabilitation Act, which generally protects federal employees from discrimination on the basis of disability. Under the Act, employers cannot make inquiries about employees’ medical conditions, except where needed for inquiries into an employee’s ability to perform job-related functions. Where that exception applies, medical information obtained must be treated as confidential. The court held that the information requested by the government to support FMLA leave was an “inquiry” into Doe’s medical condition, and therefore, the Rehabilitation Act’s confidentiality provision applied. The court rejected the government’s argument that Doe’s own disclosure of his medical condition on the FMLA form was voluntary and could have been avoided by not requesting FMLA leave. According to the court, the government’s view would require workers to choose between waiving their privacy rights or their rights to FMLA leave or a reasonable accommodation for a disability.

This case makes it clear that federal employees may file suit for a violation of their privacy rights. However, to obtain relief under the Privacy Act employees must demonstrate some actual harm. Emotional distress will usually qualify as such. The case also makes it clear that supervisors should be extremely careful not to disclose employee’s confidential medical information. Supervisors who violate an employee’s privacy rights or rights under the Rehabilitation Act may receive discipline for such conduct.

See Doe v. U.S. Postal Service (D.C. Cir., No. 01-5395, February 7, 2003)

** This information is provided by the attorneys at Passman & Kaplan, P.C., a law firm dedicated to the representation of federal employees worldwide. For more information on Passman & Kaplan, P.C., go to http://www.passmanandkaplan.com. **