FAA vs. Cooper

1. FAA vs. Cooper Will Green & Julian MatthewsWall

2. Preview • Do you think it is right to withhold private information from an employer if you felt it violated your privacy? Even if the information withheld is a hazard to your job environment?

3. Case Background • Let’s review for a moment … Stanmore Cooper vs. FAA was a case that involved an FAA program called Operation Safe Pilot that was started in 2002. • Mr. Cooper was a private pilot in Northern California who chose not to divulge necessary information to the FAA. • It was devised with the cooperation of the Office of Inspector General of the FAA, the Department of Transportation , and the Social Security Administration. • The whole program was designed to double check on what medical information pilots, and other airmen put down on their regular medical exam forms. • They wanted to know if the people were telling the truth about their medical conditions.

4. Case Background • FAA asked SAA to provide information on recipients getting social security disability payments • The operation was devised by some energetic inspectors trying to make a name for themselves; an action found to be contrary to the law. • Congress enacted the Privacy Act of 1974 for the stated purpose of safeguarding individual privacy against Government invasion. • the Act gives a civil remedy entitling individuals affected by certain agency misconduct to recover “actual damages” sustained as a result of the unlawful action

5. FAA vs. Cooper • Cooper was one of many airmen caught up in this illegal witch hunt. In March 2007, Cooper filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the FAA, SSA, and DOT. • Cooper argued that the government agencies willfully or intentionally violated the Privacy Act of 1974, which was created in response to concerns about how the creation and use of computerized databases might impact individuals' privacy rights.

6. Majority Opinion • Justice Alito wrote the Majority opinion • Mr. Cooper’s side argued that to limit the claims would also have broad repercussions. • For example : making it easy for the government to silence whistleblowers by subjecting them to embarrassing disclosures.

7. Dissenting Opinion • Justice Sotomayor, with Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer,dissenting. • Justices said that to allow the kind of compensation that the pilot, Stanmore C. Cooper, was seeking would expose the government to a much broader array of claims than Congress ever intended. • Argued that Congress had left the meaning of the term “actual damages” ambiguous enough that it could not be used to take the immunity that often protects the government from being sued for damages.

8. Dissenting (cont) • They also state that no matter how debilitating and substantial the resulting mental anguish, an individual harmed by a federal agency’s intentional or willful violation of the Privacy Act will be left without a remedy unless he or she is able to prove this.

9. Ruling • the Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize an award of damages for mental or emotional distress. • The more conservative wing of the Supreme Court formed the majority and overturned the ruling of the appeals court in a 5 to 3 vote • The ruling addressed that the phrase “actual damages” remained ambiguous as addressed by Congress. Why do you think the more conservative justices ruled against the appeals court’s decision?

10. Assessment • Who wrote the majority opinion? • Who wrote the dissenting opinion? • What was the name of the Defendant? • What was the name of the Operation started in 2002? • Do you think it was right for the Government to probe for information? Why or Why not • Why do you think the more conservative justices ruled against the appeals court’s decision? (your opinion)