Currents in Contemporary Bioethics

Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2011).

429 U.S. 589 (1977).

See generally Gostin L. O. , “Health Information Privacy,” Cornell Law Review 80, no. 3 (1995): 451–527; Kreimer S. F. , “Sunlight, Secrets, and Scarlet Letters: The Tension Between Privacy and Disclosure in Constitutional Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 140, no. 1 (1991): 1–147.

Whalen v. Roe , 429 U.S. 589, 605–606 (1977) (footnote omitted).

Id., at 607 (Brennan, J., concurring).

Doe v. City of N.Y. , 15 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1994).

Powell v. Schriver , 175 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 1999).

O'Connor v. Pierson , 426 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005).

Matson at 64, quoting Doe, 15 F.3d at 267 (emphasis in original).

Id., at 67.

15 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1994).

Matson , at 74 n. 5 (Straub, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).

636 F.2d 163 (6th Cir. 1980).

638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1980).

General Motors , 636 F.2d at 166.

812 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1987).

604 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2010).

72 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 1995).

941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1991).

5 U.S.C. § 552a (2010).

5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) (2010). See 5 C.F.R. § 297.401 (2010).

5 U.S.C. § 552a(4) (2010).

5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(1) (2010). See Doe v. Dep't of Justice, 660 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (no violation because of recipient's need to know information); Chaco v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3422548 (D.D.C. 2006) (no violation because of recipient's need to know information).

42 U.S.C. § 12111 (2010). Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 791 (2010), contains similar provisions applicable to federal government employers.

42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3) (2010); Cosette v. Minnesota Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 1999).

Desano v. Blossom S ., LLC, 553 F. Supp.2d 247 (W.D.N.Y. 2008).

EEOC v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 531 F. Supp.2d 930 (M.D. Tenn. 2008).

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652(d) (1977).

See, e.g., Urbaniak v. Newton, 277 Cal. Rptr. 354, 360 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (HIV positive status held to be a private fact); Robert C. Ozer, P.C. v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371, 378 (Colo. 1997) (facts related to “unpleasant or disgraceful” illnesses are considered private).

See, e.g., Davis v. Monsanto Co., 627 F. Supp. 418, 421–22 (S.D.W. Va. 1986) (no violation where disclosure made to protect health of coworkers).

See, e.g., Ekugwum v. City of Jackson, 2010 WL 1490247 (S.D. Miss. 2010) (supervisor's disclosure of employee's mental health condition to coworkers was insufficient publication).

Ariz. Const. art. II, § 8; Cal. Const. art. I, § 1; Haw. Const. art. I, § 6; Ill. Const. art. I, § 6; La. Const. art. I, § 5; Wash. Const. art. I, §7.

See, e.g., Hill v. NCAA, 865 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1994) (drug testing by private employers is subject to state constitutional privacy provision).

For a compilation of state health information privacy laws, see <http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/medical-records> (last visited March 18, 2011).

45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 164 (2011).

131 S. Ct. 746 (2011).

433 U.S. 425, 457 (1977). The case involved the release of President Nixon's papers and tape recordings, which he claimed would violate his informational privacy.

NASA v. Nelson , 131 S. Ct. 746, 756 (2011).

Id., at 764 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment).