Court Says Students Can't Use Privacy Law to Sue Schools

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday. June 21, 2002 | YOCHI J. DREAZEN

[TroutStalker]

Ru Paster was shocked when Gonzaga University officials told him they couldn't issue the "moral character" certificate he needed to get a state teaching license. He was even more surprised when he found out why.

Nearly a decade ago, Mr. Paster, then a senior at the private Jesuit college in Spokane, Wash., learned that school officials were withholding the certificate because of an unsubstantiated date-rape allegation against him that both he and the alleged victim denied. When the school disclosed that information to the state teacher certification agency and refused to remove it from his record, Mr. Paster sued, alleging that Gonzaga had violated a 1974 federal privacy law that gives students at schools receiving federal funds veto power over the release of such personal information. A state court agreed, awarding him nearly $2 million in damages.

[concerned about politics]

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said the privacy act gives "no specific, individually enforceable rights." The court said that only the government can punish a school for violating the law, with a cutoff in federal funding.

No no no. You can't molest or rape a student until AFTER you get your licence and tenure. This guy didn't do his homework!

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said the privacy act gives "no specific, individually enforceable rights." The court said that only the government can punish a school for violating the law, with a cutoff in federal funding.

Looks like the public schools now have some pretty valuable blackmail weapons to use against further opposition canidates.
All those tests asking all those personal questions like :
Did you have sex with.....
Did your parents ever....
Did you ever think about being gay....
Have you ever thought about using....
No wonder the schools are rejoycing. A whole new weapon has been developed for them, and only their canidates can punish them. Hail Hitler! You will comply!

[maximus@Nashville]

The lawyer muffed this one. This is not a privacy issue, but a wrongful prosecution issue.

In 1993, a school employee overheard a third student imply that Mr. Pastor had sexually assaulted the woman, and the employee began an informal investigation.

There is nothing but hearsay evidence of a crime being committed. Mr. Pastor never faced an accuser in court. The supposed ‘victim’ denies that a crime was committed. I wonder if the person overheard was ever questioned?

Mr. Pastor is the victim in this case. He deserves the chance to clear his name in court and collect damages from the institution that has damaged his ability to earn a living as well as damaging his reputation. I hope he finds better legal council.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is not a privacy issue, but a wrongful prosecution issue.

No, the guy wasn't prosecuted. He was investigated. And the fact that he was investigated was used against him in an employment decision.

Given that there seems to be nothing more to this than gossip, this is more of a slander case than anything else. Let this be a lesson to anyone who sees no harm in gossip; the person who was overheard may never have learned that s/he had caused the investigation--never mind the destruction of a man's employment prospects without basis!

But, we can't be too careful about letting a man get away with anything. </sarcasm>

[monkeyshine]

He should sue for slander, libel, defamation of character, restraint of trade, racketeering, conspiracy to deny due process, and a myriad other things.

This is the kind of bullsh!t that makes people hate government.

[jlogajan]

In 1997, a jury ordered the school to pay Mr. Paster about $1.1 million for defamation and other claims, including some $450,000 for violating the 1974 law. That grew to nearly $2 million with interest.

The Washington State Supreme Court upheld the ruling, leading Gonzaga to appeal it to the nation's highest court. Thursday's ruling tosses out the money Mr. Paster had been awarded under the 1974 law; the money he received for defamation and other related charges isn't affected.

He lost on monies for the privacy law, but he still won on defamation. It really doesn't let the information collectors off the hook -- they still have to be careful to compile and release accurate data.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Gonzaga officials -- who concede the school erred in releasing the information to the state agency -- said they were gratified by the ruling that future privacy disputes should be handled exclusively by the Department of Education. "We tried to do the right thing and unfortunately the execution wasn't perfect," said Mike Casey, the school's corporation counsel.

Now, is the Department of Education going to withhold federal funds from Gonzaga?

And even if so, how will that help the guy who was slandered to a prospective employer?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

a jury ordered the school to pay Mr. Paster about $1.1 million for defamation and other claims, including some $450,000 for violating the 1974 law.

He lost on monies for the privacy law, but he still won on defamation. It really doesn't let the information collectors off the hook -- they still have to be careful to compile and release accurate data.

Excellent point, and satisfactory. Plaintiff still gets

$1,100,000-$450,000 = $650,000.

Good enough, even assuming the lawyers got half. Real vindication.

[connectthedots]

I follow the workings and decisions of the Washington state appellate courts very closely. The USSC got this decision right. This was purely a straightforward defamation/libel lawsuit. His attorney was correct to kist the violation of the 1974 law as an additional cause of action since such claims had been successful in other states and some other federal circuits. I suspect that this guy is satisfied with his $1.1 million on the defamation/libel cause of action, plus whatever interest he had earned up to the time that was paid.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Glad to see that Gonzaga had no real chance in the case, on the slander grounds. You have to wonder why they didn't settle quickly for $100,000. And a letter of abject appology . . .

[moyden]

Every liberal graves a gestapo society.

[concerned about politics]

Excellent point, and satisfactory. Plaintiff still gets $1,100,000-$450,000 = $650,000.

We support the public schools through taxes or tuition. So we end up paying the fine. Gee, thanks. Some punishment for the school, aye? Ouch!