GovernmentExecutive.com

A Postal Service supervisor violated an employee's privacy rights by telling his co-workers that the employee was HIV-positive, according to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The employee, a maintenance worker at the Postal Service's Brentwood facility in Washington, D.C., missed several weeks of work in March and April 1998 because of an AIDS-related illness. The employee's supervisor asked him to submit an administrative form and a medical certificate explaining why he was sick.

The supervisor told the employee, identified as John Doe, that he had five days to submit the form or he would face disciplinary action for his unexplained absence. She also told Doe that he might be eligible for the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows eligible federal employees to take up to12 weeks of unpaid annual leave for health reasons.

Doe then applied for FMLA benefits. His doctor filled out a section of the form stating he was HIV-positive. Doe submitted the form to an administrative assistant at the Postal Service so that his direct supervisor would not know he was HIV-positive.

But when he returned to work from his sick leave, he discovered that his HIV status was "common knowledge among his co-workers." Several co-workers traced the leak to Doe's supervisor.

Doe filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging Postal Service officials had disclosed information in medical records, violating the 1974 Privacy Act, which prohibits federal agencies from sharing information in workers' records without obtaining written consent, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which also prevents agencies from making medical information public, unless the information comes from a voluntary health exam.

The court granted the Postal Service's motion to dismiss the case because there was not enough evidence in Doe's favor, ruling that Doe could not prove a Postal Service employee had improperly disclosed information. The court also noted that he had voluntarily asked his doctor to fill out the FMLA form, making the information on the form exempt from the Rehabilitation Act.

But in a Feb. 7 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the lower court's decision on the basis that Doe had sufficient evidence to prove that his managing supervisor had improperly revealed information after looking at the FMLA application. The Court of Appeals also said that Doe did not voluntarily ask his doctor to fill out the FMLA form, since his direct supervisor had threatened him with disciplinary action if he did not explain his absence from work.

"Even if Doe can be said to have submitted the FMLA request voluntarily, as the district court found and the Postal Service now insists, that hardly means he volunteered his medical diagnosis," the opinion said.

John Doe v. U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (01-5395), Feb. 7, 2003

Penny-wise

The government did not have to follow up on a fraud claim since the expense of investigating the claim would exceed the amount of the alleged fraud, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

In January 1999, Susan Swift, a former Justice Department attorney, accused one former and two current employees in the department's Office of Legal Counsel of conspiring to defraud the government in 1992, violating the 1986 False Claims Act. The alleged fraud, involving time sheets and leave slips, amounted to $6,169.20.

The government moved to dismiss Swift's complaint in April 1999, claiming that the "amount of money involved did not justify the expense of litigation even if the allegations could be proven." After a hearing, the D.C. district court upheld the government's decision, stating that the "government had demonstrated that dismissal was rationally related to a valid government purpose."

Swift appealed the case, alleging that the dismissal was "improper" since the government had never even investigated her claims. The False Claims Act allows the government to dismiss actions as long as the court has provided an opportunity for hearings on the motion. After a hearing, the government can dismiss a claim as long as the reason is not "arbitrary of capricious," the appeals court ruled.

Susan J. Swift v. United States of America, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (01-5312), Feb. 11, 2003

COMMENTS

• Does a Postal supervisor have the right to use another postal employee contact information they have on file to contact another postal employee whose information is different? And reason supervisor is using employee information to contact other employee because she suspect both employee are involve with each other. Is that invading privacy? Yvette Anise Smith Posted September 4, 2007 3:44 PM