Doe v. Chao (No. 02-1377) - Opinion Announcement
: The second of the two cases that I have to announce this morning is 02-1377 Doe v. Chao.
This case comes to us on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Petitioner Buck Doe applied to the office of the Workers’ Compensation Programs of the Department of Labor for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act.
The agency then used Doe’s Social Security number to identify his claim and official documents, including a multi-caption hearing that was sent to a group of claimants there, employers and lawyers.
The District Court found that this disclosure of Doe’s Social Security number violated the Federal Privacy Act, and awarded Doe a $1000, the minimum statutory damages award.
The Fourth Circuit reversed holding that because Doe had not suffered any actual damages.
The minimum statutory award was unavailable.
The Fourth Circuit thus created a conflict among the Circuits and we reviewed the case to resolve it.
In an opinion filed today with the Clerk of Court, we affirm the Fourth Circuit.
Litigants are not eligible for the $1,000 minimum under the Privacy Act, unless they prove that they suffered some actual damages from an agency’s statutory violation.
The Civil Remedy Section of the Privacy Act, innumerate the penalties available for a violation like the one at issue here.
It provides that if a plaintiff can show that the agency’s violation was intentional or willful, then in the verge of the statute, the United State shall be liable for actual damages sustained by the individual, but in case now case shall a person entitled to recovery, receive less than the sum of a $1,000.
The "straightforward textual analysis" demonstrates that this minimum guarantee goes only to victims who prove some actual damages, and hence are entitled to recovery.
Although, Doe sees the guarantee as a form of what is known at common law as general damages for a dignitary tort, his reading is belied by a drafting history which shows that Congress cut a provision from an earlier bill that would have explicitly authorized general damages.
Justice Ginsburg has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Stevens and Breyer joined and Justice Breyer has also filed a separate dissent.
