Doe v. Chao

In Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the right to damages for violation of the Privacy Act by the government. The Court held on appeal from summary judgment that, under the Privacy Act "[t]he 'entitle[ment] to recovery' necessary to qualify for the $1,000 minimum is not shown merely by an intentional or willful violation of the Act producing some adverse effect. The statute guarantees $1,000 only to plaintiffs who have suffered some actual damages." Id. at 627.

The facts of this case included the following:

“

Petitioner Buck Doe filed for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 83 Stat 792, 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. [30 USCS §§ 901 et seq.], with the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, the division of the Department of Labor responsible for adjudicating it. The application form called for a Social Security number, which the agency then used to identify the applicant's claim, as on documents like "multicaptioned" notices of hearing dates, sent to groups of claimants, their employers, and the lawyers involved in their cases. The Government concedes that following this practice led to disclosing Doe's Social Security number beyond the limits set by the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) [5 USCS § 552a(b)].

”

Id. at 616-617.

The dissent by Justice Ginsburg is often cited her analysis that:

“

It bears emphasis that the Privacy Act does not authorize injunctive relief when suit is maintained under § 552a(g)(1)(C) or (D). Injunctive relief, and attendant counsel fees and costs, are available under the Act in two categories of cases: suits to amend a record, § 552a(g)(2), and suits for access to a record, § 552a(g)(3).

”

Id. at 635 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).