## Facts

- John Buck Doe sought federal black lung benefits from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
- In processing his claim, the DOL used Doe’s Social Security number (SSN) as an identifying number on official documents.
- The DOL issued a multicaptioned hearing notice listing multiple claimants and their SSNs, and distributed it to claimants, employers, and attorneys.
- Doe and other claimants sued under the Privacy Act of 1974, alleging unlawful disclosure of personal information.
- The Government agreed to an order barring future inclusion of SSNs on multicaptioned hearing notices.
- The district court entered judgment against all plaintiffs except Doe; for Doe, it credited his testimony that the disclosure caused him distress and awarded $1,000 as the statutory minimum.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed Doe’s damages award, holding that the $1,000 minimum is available only upon proof of “actual damages,” which Doe had not shown.

## Issues

1. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A), must a Privacy Act plaintiff prove “actual damages sustained” to receive the minimum statutory amount of $1,000?
2. Does showing a Privacy Act violation and an “adverse effect,” without proof of actual damages, entitle a plaintiff to the $1,000 minimum award?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court held that § 552a(g)(4)(A) conditions any monetary recovery, including the $1,000 minimum, on proof of actual damages.
- Because Doe did not produce evidence of actual damages beyond uncorroborated testimony of distress, he was not entitled to the $1,000 award.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Privacy Act’s catchall civil remedy, a plaintiff must show an “adverse effect” and, for money damages, an intentional or willful violation.
- Section 552a(g)(4)(A) authorizes liability for “actual damages sustained,” and the “not less than $1,000” clause applies only to a “person entitled to recovery” of actual damages.
- The statute does not provide presumed or automatic damages for a violation absent proof of actual harm.
- Legislative history supporting earlier consideration and later removal of “general damages” language reinforces that Congress limited monetary recovery to actual damages.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted the Privacy Act to require proof of actual damages as a prerequisite to any monetary award, including the statute’s $1,000 minimum, so a plaintiff who proves only a violation and adverse effect cannot recover damages without evidence of actual harm.


Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004)