Does Privacy Still Exist Amid Coronavirus?

confidential-264516_1280.png

Amid the news of cities and states reopening, there also have been reports of closures. Some restaurants that had welcomed in-person dining have closed because an employee had tested positive for COVID-19. Bars and pubs, the ultimate watering holes for socializing and catching up with friends, have similarly shut their doors to the public once again. Despite the rising number of positive cases, none of these businesses is required to report any instances of employees who test positive for the disease. For instance, here in Texas, Governor Greg Abbott and the Strike Force to Open Texas have established a list of guidelines and minimum health protocols to which small businesses, such as restaurants, must adhere if they choose to reopen. No public reporting requirements are included in these checklists. Nevertheless, many restaurants throughout Texas and the rest of the country have opted to do so in an effort at transparency and general good business practice, seeking to assure the public that they value their loyalty and business but not at the sake of the health of their employees or their customers.

While restaurants and similarly situated businesses are not required to report COVID cases to the public, employers are still obligated to inform affected employees of their possible exposure to the virus. However, the employer must keep the identity of the infected employee confidential, as called for by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Although many people associate the ADA with prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the workplace, the ADA also has privacy provisions that require employers covered by the ADA to keep all information about an employee’s illness confidential. In the case of COVID-19, employers are permitted to screen employees entering the workplace and may inquire about any symptoms identified by the CDC or public health officials associated with the disease. Such questions are deemed appropriate because of the severe health threat that the disease poses. Any information ascertained from the screening, though, must be kept confidential and stored in a file that is separate from the employee’s personnel file. Despite this confidentiality, employers are able to disclose the name of an infected employee to a public health agency.

Another law that protects individuals from public disclosure of health-related information is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Under HIPAA, certain covered entities, typically healthcare providers and health plan insurers, cannot disclose protected health information without authorization from the individual. Nevertheless, there are situations when such information can be disclosed without prior consent for national priority purposes, including public health activities. According to a bulletin issued in March, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a limited waiver of certain sanctions and penalties associated with noncompliance with HIPAA’s Privacy Rule. However, even with the waiver, covered entities, such as hospitals, are able to share patient information with a public health authority and persons at risk. Disclosure of such information to the media or persons not associated with the patient’s care requires written authorization. One of the more recent high-profile cases alleging a potential HIPAA violation involved the disclosure of a positive COVID-19 test result for Dallas Cowboys star running back Ezekiel Elliott. Elliott took to Twitter, questioning whether such disclosure was a violation of HIPAA’s Privacy Rule. Maybe, maybe not. Remember that only healthcare professionals and other specified covered entities are held to the rules set out in HIPAA. In Elliot’s case, the media’s disclosure of the test results was not itself a violation of HIPAA, but the initial disclosure very well might have been.

Yes, even amid a global pandemic, privacy laws are still in place to protect individuals from the public disclosure of any health-related information. These laws present a challenge for businesses because employers are required to balance the protection of an infected employee’s privacy rights with the health and welfare of the possibly affected employees. Employers who still have questions can consult the CDC’s website, where it is has prepared some guidance for businesses and employers.

Your Guacamole Has a Dark Side

avocado-1452326_1280.jpg

Don’t let anyone tell you different. Texans love their guacamole. Recipes are touted as the “best guacamole in Texas.” The quality of Mexican restaurants are judged on the basis of their guacamole. Even though the 78th Legislature in 2003 declared tortilla chips and salsa to be the state snack, guacamole reigns supreme in many dining circles. Of course, guacamole is not a Lone Star State creation, but I imagine that Texas would love to lay claim to it.

Guacamole traces its roots to the Aztecs, who inhabited a region in South Central Mexico from around 1300 to 1521. They mashed up avocados and spices into a mixture called āhuacamolli, literally “avocado sauce” in Nahuatl, the language used by the Aztecs. (The avocado itself, though, has quite a long history, going back to the Cenozoic era, where it was fodder for prehistoric creatures.) The ahuacatl or alligator pear, as the avocado was commonly called, caught the attention of Spaniards in the 16th century, who then brought these fruits back to Europe. Avocados first made their appearance in the United States in the mid-19th century. Farmers in California in the 1900s changed the name, believing that neither of the names, ahuacatl or alligator pear, were palatable for North American tastes. (Ahuacatl, incidentally, means “testicle” in Nahuatl, so the change was probably for the best.)

Whether it was the name change or the buttery texture of the fruit, avocado consumption in the United States has continued to increase steadily in the past two decades. According to the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “[p]er capita consumption of avocados has tripled since 2001 to 8 pounds per person in 2018.” California is the largest producer in the United States while Mexico is the largest importer with about 89% of the market share.

Unfortunately, this cool and creamy fruit and the delicious dip for which it is the main ingredient have a darker side, thanks to the drug cartels that are extorting avocado farmers in Mexico. Recognizing the value of this simple crop and the multi-billion dollar industry of which it is part, drug cartels first dipped their hand into the trade by offering protection to the farmers, asking for the payment of a tax in return. Services ceased, but money was still demanded. Some of the methods used by the cartels to gain control of land rife with avocado trees and the income derived from its production include informal “ownership,” monthly protection payments, and stolen produce. Failure to comply with demands, moreover, could result in kidnapping, torture, and even death, thus setting up a bloody battle between growers and the cartels. This violence has prompted many restaurant owners and consumers to boycott these so-called “blood avocados,” an approach not espoused by all because of the negative effect it will have on the workers who rely upon avocado production to put food on their tables and roofs over their heads. Boycotts, the argument goes, punish the victim, not the extorter.

Mexico is not the only nation in which its avocado crops attract criminals. For the past four years, avocados in New Zealand have fallen victim to thievery. One grower reportedly had about 70% of his orchard stolen. It is of such concern that the New Zealand avocado industry has issued recommendations and guidance to both growers and consumers to protect fruit from theft and to recognize fruit that had been stolen.

All of the criminal activity surrounding the avocado-growing industry coupled with consumer demand for the tasty, yet healthy superfood have caused avocado prices to skyrocket. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this growing problem, but it certainly gives us guacamole lovers food for thought.

Bona to vada your dolly old eek!*

Monday’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia came as a surprise to many, with typically conservative justices making decisions with progressive outcomes. As so many have reported, Neil Gorsuch, a strict textualist, looked at the plain language of the law and concluded:

“When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Bottom line: Language matters.

We at the Harris County Law Library also have an appreciation for language and its many idiosyncrasies. Reading about the Supreme Court’s historic decision brought to mind the importance of language and words – what they mean, and how they function.

Language serves a greater purpose than communication. It is the currency we use for self-expression, and it gives meaning to thoughts and ideas. Language also builds communities. To learn the vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and tone of a language is to become part of the in-group that speaks it. In short, words give us access to the communities we inhabit.

Within those communities, we develop a jargon, which one website defines as “a type of shorthand between members of a particular group of people, often involving words that are meaningless outside of a certain context.” When mastered, jargon serves as an emblem of our belonging. One good example that illustrates how language defines a culture comes from the LGBTQ community in Great Britain.

Polari

This anti-language is, thankfully, a relic of a bygone era when gay men in the United Kingdom relied on words to keep them safe. Homosexuality was not decriminalized in the UK until the passage of the Sexual Offences Act of 1967. Developing a tool for communicating within the gay community prior to that time was necessary to survive. That tool was Polari, a secret language that evolved from thieves’ cant, an argot used in the world of petty crime that dates back to the 16th century. Along the way, Polari picked up bits of Yiddish, Italian, and Romani. It bears many similarities to Cockney Rhyming Slang, using humor and wit to speak in a way that granted gay men the freedom to socialize and build community without fear. Today, Polari is all but dead, a sign of the times. Yesterday’s decision to protect LGBTQ individuals in the workplace hinged on a strict textual reading of the law, and consequently, led to the further demise of cultural touchstones like Polari that are no longer needed.

*Nice to see your pretty face!