5 ms·

I'm not sure that supercedes the standard which HIPPA protects American worker's health information from corporate or institutional mishandling. https://www.hh

by ncr100 4y ago

I'm not sure that supercedes the standard which HIPPA protects American worker's health information from corporate or institutional mishandling. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.ht... Like if you or CEO you might not be able to confirm or debate and employee or (in the process of being fired) ex-employees health information. It just might be part of HIPAA that says you don't have the right to speak about that anymore. To be clear, I haven't found this restriction in the regulations of that link I just shared but that's what I suspect given what I've seen of employer restrictions from my work history. Update: No I think I'm coming around to your perspective because it looks like HIPA is only applicable to health insurance providers. Not employers. Unless of course the employer is a self-funded health insurance provider, I don't know the details of twitter's health plan. https://www.calltherightattorney.com/blog/2022/02/can-my-employer-share-my-medical-information/ https://www.calltherightattorney.com/blog/2022/02/can-my-emp... This link suggests that it might be an ADA violation. However Elon Musk could claim that he is revealing that the employee has a disability through Elon's reading of the employees Twitter feed which has public information about his muscular dystrophy. That's a way to weasel out of this ADA violation, potentially. Update 2: Ah but it looks like it's a civil rights violation: > releasing an employee’s medical information in retaliation to that attorney opposing unlawful discrimination or harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that will give rise to a very good claim for damages as well. It felt wrong, reading what Elon wrote, and it looks like, if this blog post is to be trusted, the law also agrees with that sentiment.

frankreyes 4y ago
Yeah I'm not US based so I'm talking out of my vacuum, but from what I understand, it makes sense. A couple of days ago there was someone asking about not using Windows laptop for religious purposes and the answer was that if that was a large hassle for the business, it was okay to say no. Edit: > releasing an employee’s medical information Does saying that X has a disability is a release of medical information, when that's public information in their Twitter profile and runs a business to help others with that disability?
- ncr100 4y ago
  You know ... it could be that since Haraldur is Iceland based, he doesn't have the same US civil rights. This could amount to No legal action. I haven't researched whether employment rights translate to employees in other countries. Re: releasing otherwise public information: That is a fantastic question. I don't know. I suspect there is a legal case to be made: I think about this as a hypothetical "reasonable person", which is what appears in the courtroom TV shows that I personally have watched. Perhaps obviously, I am not a lawyer, But I do watch TV shows about lawyers <3. 1) A reasonable person might conclude that Musk did not research Harald's Twitter feed but instead merely read his name, after receiving the direct tweet from Harald, and then asked Twitter human resources' database to confirm he was in fact His Twitter employee. 2) Alternatively a reasonable person might conclude that Musk did research Harald's Twitter feed before replying. And so it was okay for Musk to disclose. Again I'm being very approximate. So I think it's possible to make a case and it might be worth the potential legal victory and monetary payout for damages. To reiterate something tangential to your question, I think it is clear that regardless of the disclosure, Musk's thinking around the termination does include Haraldur's disability. That's not right, legally, from what I've read.
  - frankreyes 4y ago
    Thanks on your extensive research xd Companies accommodate employees disabilities in order to allow the employee to do their jobs. Elon's argument is that they're not working, even after accomodations. It has nothing to do with the disability. Will it hold in a court of law? Ianal
maxerickson 4y ago
HIPPA doesn't apply to your employment records. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/499/am-i-a-covered-entity-under-hipaa/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/499/am-i-a-c... I'm pretty sure that if you allow the release of HIPAA covered information from a provider to your employer that the information stored by your employer is not protected by HIPAA anymore. HIPAA restricts what covered entities can do (basically healthcare providers and insurance), not what can be done with medical information in general. Of course most decent employers will handle even mildly sensitive information in a confidential way.

by ncr100 4y ago

frankreyes 4y ago

Yeah I'm not US based so I'm talking out of my vacuum, but from what I understand, it makes sense. A couple of days ago there was someone asking about not using Windows laptop for religious purposes and the answer was that if that was a large hassle for the business, it was okay to say no. Edit: > releasing an employee’s medical information Does saying that X has a disability is a release of medical information, when that's public information in their Twitter profile and runs a business to help others with that disability?

ncr100 4y ago
You know ... it could be that since Haraldur is Iceland based, he doesn't have the same US civil rights. This could amount to No legal action. I haven't researched whether employment rights translate to employees in other countries. Re: releasing otherwise public information: That is a fantastic question. I don't know. I suspect there is a legal case to be made: I think about this as a hypothetical "reasonable person", which is what appears in the courtroom TV shows that I personally have watched. Perhaps obviously, I am not a lawyer, But I do watch TV shows about lawyers <3. 1) A reasonable person might conclude that Musk did not research Harald's Twitter feed but instead merely read his name, after receiving the direct tweet from Harald, and then asked Twitter human resources' database to confirm he was in fact His Twitter employee. 2) Alternatively a reasonable person might conclude that Musk did research Harald's Twitter feed before replying. And so it was okay for Musk to disclose. Again I'm being very approximate. So I think it's possible to make a case and it might be worth the potential legal victory and monetary payout for damages. To reiterate something tangential to your question, I think it is clear that regardless of the disclosure, Musk's thinking around the termination does include Haraldur's disability. That's not right, legally, from what I've read.
- frankreyes 4y ago
  Thanks on your extensive research xd Companies accommodate employees disabilities in order to allow the employee to do their jobs. Elon's argument is that they're not working, even after accomodations. It has nothing to do with the disability. Will it hold in a court of law? Ianal

maxerickson 4y ago

HIPPA doesn't apply to your employment records. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/499/am-i-a-covered-entity-under-hipaa/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/499/am-i-a-c... I'm pretty sure that if you allow the release of HIPAA covered information from a provider to your employer that the information stored by your employer is not protected by HIPAA anymore. HIPAA restricts what covered entities can do (basically healthcare providers and insurance), not what can be done with medical information in general. Of course most decent employers will handle even mildly sensitive information in a confidential way.