114 SOCIAL WORK ETHICS IN A CHANGING SOCIETY ETHICAL DILEMMA 6.3 Whom Does Confidentiality Protect? (This is a true story. The names are unchanged because the San Francisco Examiner reported this story. Cf. Matier & Ross, August 4, 1991.) In 1991, Milledge Anderson, who had skipped out on his shipped him back to the Pennsylvania State Peniten- Pennsylvania parole after serving 12 years for aggra- tiary in Graterford, Pennsylvania. vated rape, appeared in the office of the San Francisco For her role in assisting in the arrest of a wanted Department of Social Services. There was a warrant felon, the department brought Meadows up on charges for his arrest. On April 25, 1991, when Pennsylvania that could result in a five-day suspension. Her offense authorities alerted the San Francisco Police Depart- insubordination and violating Anderson's right to con- ment that Anderson might be in the city, they added fidentiality. Meadows fought the suspension with the that he might try to obtain welfare benefits (General support of her union, SEIU Local 535. At a departmen- Assistance, or GA, the state or locally funded program tal hearing on July 15, her attorney, Stewart Weinberg for single, childless adults) argued that Meadows did not give police any informa A few days later, Inspector Tom Parisi and his part- tion from Anderson's confidential file and, therefore, ner in the Fugitive Detail Program went to the general she broke no law or ethical duty. "He didn't say [ to her] assistance welfare office on Harrison Street. They told "I'm a fugitive wanted in Pennsylvania.' She found that officials that Anderson was wanted and asked if he had out as a result of a background check, and then became any upcoming appointments. Officials at the office aware that she had a very dangerous person on her would not provide them with any information unless hands," Weinberg said. He also argued that Anderson's they presented a subpoena. mere presence in California was a crime and that Mead- The warning by the Pennsylvania police was true. ows was legally obligated to call the police Anderson had already applied for $315/month in Inspector Gary Delagnes, Vice President of the general assistance and had a second appointment Police Officers Association, agreed: "I would cer- scheduled in May 1991. Meanwhile, Lavinia Meadows, a tainly think that the woman did the right thing. If it is caseworker assigned to the case, received a tip from a the stance of the Department of Social Services that social work colleague that Anderson might be wanted. the confidentiality of a convicted rapist supersedes the She ran a routine background check and discovered best interest of the public, then I think they've got a that he was, indeed, a fugitive. pretty fouled-up philosophy over there." Meadows called the parole office in Philadelphia, The Department of Social Services saw the situa who told her that Anderson was "extremely danger- tion differently. Department officials stated that state ous" and that he had already assaulted a social worker law (Welfare Code 10850.3) permits social workers in Pennsylvania. The parole officer, Ken Paul, also told to release "specified" information on applicants "only Meadows she should call the police right away because upon a written request" from police. The Depart- "if you didn't get him he was going to do something. . ment's General Manager, Julia Lopez, said that the He's not normal. He just goes off." verbal request of Inspector Parisi was not sufficient Meadows told her supervisor, Russ Miller, who and that the officers should have known that. Lopez called his superior, Dorothy Enisman, for advice. Enis- further stated that surrendering information without a man told Miller to alert the department's security written request is a misdemeanor. guards for possible trouble but explicitly instructed Meadows' attorney countered that the law only Miller and Meadows not to call the police. Miller fol- applies to how police obtain information and has noth- lowed her orders, but Meadows did not. ing to do with Meadows. He asked, "Suppose Anderson When Anderson showed up for his appointment started beating up on someone in front of Meadows. on May 28, Meadows stalled him, saying some papers Could she not report that crime to the police? The were missing. While Anderson waited, she called the woman is on the side of the angels. I can't believe how police. They arrived, arrested Anderson, and later hypocritical they [DSS officials] are being in this case."CHAPTER 6 . CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE DUTY TO WARN 715 Lopez disagreed. "The fact of the matter," she said, "is that we both [the police and DSS] have respon sibilities and obligations. . We want to help but we have to do it in a way that meets legal requirements." Regardless, Lopez asserted, Meadows was insubordi nate for disobeying a direct order by calling the police. While she sympathized with Meadows, Lopez said, "She made a personal choice, and when you make a personal choice, you sometimes have to pay for the consequences of your actions."