Doe, an employee of South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), brought an action alleging that SEPTA violated his right to privacy by disclosing his HIV status to two individuals within the company. A senior official at SEPTA learned of Doe’s status from the medication he was taking while reviewing an employee prescription drug program and disclosed Does’ status to two other individuals. The jury awarded Doe damages. The decision was appealed.

The Circuit Court reversed holding that there was no violation of Doe’s right to privacy in his prescription drug records. The Court held that courts must balance the individual’s privacy interest in his or her prescription records against the interests of the employer in obtaining the information. In this case, SEPTA had a strong interest in containing costs and expenses of prescription medicine and the disclosure of Doe’s HIV status was minimal given that only two additional people at SEPTA learned of his status. In addition, the Court highlighted that Doe had been given a promotion and salary increase since the disclosure and that Doe himself testified that he had experienced little economic hardship due to the disclosure. The Court did acknowledge the social stigma, harassment, and discrimination that can result from public knowledge of one's affliction.

Link to Case

Print