February / March #12 : Needing the Doe - by Catherine Hanssens

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues

Table of Contents

Where There's Smoke There Must Be Fire

Trials by Fire

Let the Seller Beware

Putting the P in PML

Ship to Shore

Jackie O Contraire

Over Disclosure


Cuisinart for Art's Sake

Needing the Doe

Waste Management

Sleeping AIDS


Casey's Pop Life: Living for Today

The Lady Doth Protest

Bobbing with Bill

Shelf Life

Don't Speak

Web Crawler: Marty Howard

Squash Your Bug

Chopped Liver

Strife Insurance

Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle


Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV

email print

February / March 1996

Needing the Doe

by Catherine Hanssens

People with HIV, confidentiality and the courts

Faced with the discrimination and complications that life with HIV can bring, a sobering number of people with HIV have had to turn to the courts to enforce their rights. Meanwhile, far from the cutting-edge world of HIV law, others are engaged in everyday legal proceedings which involve their health status only indirectly or not at all. But regardless of whether the legal action is HIV-related, potential HIV positive litigants need to consider whether going to court might result in the disclosure of their status. While many PWAs go public with their health status in the belief that keeping it private tacitly endorses stigmatization, the continuing reality for many more is that disclosure places a job, insurance and even safety at risk. But choosing between rights and privacy is not required.

David Webber, editor of the text AIDS and the Law, notes that any attorney representing clients with HIV should consider in advance the ways in which health status might be disseminated as a consequence of involvement in legal proceedings. However, sometimes a client living with HIV is better able to anticipate disclosure issues than an attorney unfamiliar with representing PWAs or insensitive to the consequences of disclosure. It is helpful to be an educated consumer.

When disclosure of HIV status is likely, as in any case in which HIV-related discrimination is an issue, a pseudonym (usually "Jane Doe" or "John Doe") is the primary way to make sure that third parties do not get access to HIV status and other related information.

Most courts will allow a plaintiff to file a lawsuit using a pseudonym when the plaintiff clearly sets forth the reasons why confidentiality is necessary, although working this out in advance with the defendant's lawyer generally is a good idea. It has become fairly common practice for litigants with HIV to choose this route, and the occasional defendant who tries to "out" the plaintiff with HIV as a form of intimidation (as the law firm defendant in the Philadelphia lawyer case, Scott Doe v. Kohn Nast, did) is more likely to earn a rebuke from the court than to succeed. To accomplish this, the attorney for the client with HIV can file court papers using initials or a pseudonym, together with a request for a court order protecting the client's identity.

Use of a pseudonym is not an airtight guarantee of confidentiality, however. Publicity about a case may negate the effects of any precautions. Although administrative proceedings such as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigations generally are not public documents, even these agencies can inadvertently cause the harm they exist to prevent. In one such case, a person who complained about HIV-related employment discrimination to the New York City Commission on Human Rights had his expectations about confidentiality shattered when the Commission issued a press release about the settlement of the case. Although the press release did not identify him by name, it provided sufficient information to allow his co-workers to recognize him. He sued the Commission for the disclosure, and the subsequent federal appeals court ruling, Doe v. City of New York (1994), reaffirmed the complainant's reasonable expectation that the settlement would be kept private.

Because cases, particularly those involving HIV-related discrimination, may rely on documents that would identify the party, a request to the court for an order sealing the case record also may be worth considering. This usually can be worked out in advance with the attorney for the other side, and then the lawyers for both sides file a stipulation to that effect with the court. If the other side is uncooperative, the party trying to maintain privacy can file a request for a protective order with the court.

Catherine Hanssens is director of the AIDS Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (212.995.8585).

[Go to top]

Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr Instagram
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar
POZ on Twitter

Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Did you participate in an event for National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day 2016?


more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2016 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.