Doe v. Chao

Background

A group of Black Lung benefit applicants, including Buck Doe, sued the Department of Labor after the agency used applicants’ Social Security numbers on hearing notices sent to multiple claimants. The Government conceded the practice exceeded the Privacy Act’s limits. The plaintiffs sought class certification; the District Court denied certification but awarded Doe $1,000 in statutory damages for his distress. The Fourth Circuit reversed Doe, holding that plaintiffs must prove some actual damages to recover the $1,000 minimum.

Reasoning

The Court examined the Privacy Act’s text, focusing on §552a(g)(4), which mentions recovery of "actual damages" and then guarantees a $1,000 minimum to a "person entitled to recovery." The majority read the guarantee as referring back to those who have shown actual damages. It relied on drafting history showing Congress removed language that would have authorized general (presumed) damages and on a statute-by-statute reading that treats the $1,000 floor as tied to demonstrable harm.

Real world impact

Because the Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit, people whose only harm is fear, anxiety, or similar emotional distress will generally need some proof of actual damages to get the $1,000 statutory minimum. The ruling affects anyone suing under the Privacy Act for agency disclosures and clarifies that the minimum award is not automatically available to all victims of willful violations.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer dissented, arguing the $1,000 minimum should be available to victims who suffer an "adverse effect" (like emotional distress) without additional proof of pecuniary loss, citing earlier circuit decisions and OMB guidance.