Essential Considerations for Contact Tracing

Essential Considerations for Contact Tracing

COVID-19 is altering traditional approaches to educating students and conducting research at colleges and universities across the U.S. As a large majority prepare to welcome students, faculty, and staff back to campus for the fall 2020 semester, a substantial investment of time and resources is required to secure their safety and well-being. 

Legal duties, ethical principles and reputational concerns all underlie this obligation — an inadequate approach can create substantial liability for any institution of higher education (IHE). This is especially true since COVID-19 will be considered a foreseeable risk by the time IHEs begin to reopen. 

Courts have split on whether or not a school owes a duty of care to students. The prudent course is for IHEs is to assume that they have the duty to protect students from foreseeable risks. Similarly, they need to adopt reasonable measures to protect faculty and staff from known harm. 

Contact tracing is one tool IHEs must consider to meet these safety obligations. 

Contact tracing involves identifying and locating individuals who have been exposed to someone infected with COVID-19. In the traditional “shoe leather” approach, a trained contact tracer interviews the infected person as soon as possible after diagnosis to learn the names of people with whom he or she has had significant contact during a period of infection. According to the CDC, COVID-19 contact tracing should identify those who were within six feet of the infected person for a period of 15 or more minutes, beginning 48 hours before the onset of symptoms through the time that the infected person was isolated. 

Contact tracing must be conducted swiftly and efficiently. For IHEs, reliance upon local public health authorities may not suffice. These government agencies, even where adequately funded, will struggle to keep up with contact tracing demand when thousands of people arrive in their communities to begin a semester. Similarly, IHEs themselves, whose budgets have been ravaged by the COVID-19 pandemic, will lack the staffing resources to engage in person-to-person contact tracing. 

Given the scope of the pandemic and the drastic consequences from failing to detect an upswing in infection in a timely manner, many IHEs are considering use of professional contact tracing providers to conduct contact tracing on their behalf. Done correctly, professional contact tracing uses a mix of electronic data gathering and human interaction to collect and review information about an infected individual’s interaction with people on campus, uncover all meaningful contacts and potentially infected public spaces, and reach out to help them understand how to protect themselves with quarantine, isolation, or testing.

To avoid legal missteps, IHEs need to ensure that anyone conducting contact tracing on their behalf comply with data privacy and security laws, health information privacy laws, employment laws and, as applicable, with principles of constitutional law. 

Data Privacy Laws

A for-profit entity conducting contact tracing on behalf of an IHE needs to comply with a growing number of state laws regulating the privacy of personal information such as the California Consumer Privacy Act which imposes detailed notice and use obligations as well as consumer rights to access and request deletion of personal information.

Health Information Privacy Laws

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act safeguards the confidentiality of protected health information but is unlikely to affect contact tracing except in narrow circumstances. More relevant is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which prohibits IHEs from disclosing personally identifiable information from education records without prior written consent of a parent/guardian or eligible student. 

Nondiscrimination and Related Rights

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) imposes broad protections against discrimination in employment, accommodations and education for persons with disabilities. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by any program or activity receiving federal funding. The ADA and Section 504 may be relevant to contact tracing, prohibiting results from being used as a basis for discrimination.

(a) In the student context, an IHE may not discriminate on the basis of disability in admissions, accommodations or instruction. There is a robust and extensive history of litigation against IHEs centered on claims of disability discrimination. In every instance, the key questions are whether the student actually had a condition that qualifies as a disability; whether the disability could reasonably be accommodated by the IHE without undue hardship; and whether the IHE did in fact provide reasonable accommodation. COVID-19, an infectious disease, will doubtless qualify as a disability. Thus, refusing admission to a student because she had COVID-19 would be discriminatory unless no reasonable accommodation, such as temporary quarantine in a specially designated dormitory, were possible without creating undue hardship for the IHE. 

(b) Any employer who has more than 15 employees and any employer providing programs or services receiving federal funding will be prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of disability. The key is whether the employee has a condition qualifying as a disability; whether the disability — infection with COVID-19 — can be reasonably accommodated by the employer without undue hardship; and whether the employer has provided reasonable accommodation. 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race, color and national origin discrimination by IHEs receiving federal funds. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by employers based on race, color, national origin, religion and sex, including pregnancy. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act bars discrimination in employment based on age (40 or older). Each of these may give rise to claims against IHEs based on how they use information obtained through contact tracing. 

Electronic Data Privacy and Security Laws

Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) uses its enforcement authority to oversee collection, storage, and transmission of digital user data. The FTC has a long record of imposing sanctions when privacy practices fail to protect consumers as promised in published privacy policies. IHEs should ensure an external contact tracing professional disclose to users how data will be utilized and that each user expressly agrees.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”) makes it a crime to access electronic data without authorization. Violations can result in prison sentences, $250,000 fines, and victim lawsuits. While an employment contract or student handbook may provide for such authorization, it is unlikely that IHEs have designed such documents to cover contact tracing. 

Federal Constitutional Issues

Students and employees of public universities will also be entitled to protection of constitutional privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, such as acquiring cell phone records to trace a suspect’s movements. No Fourth Amendment concerns are raised where a search is done with consent. For public IHEs this exception provides additional reasons to make sure external professionals secure clear user consent before implementing contact tracing. 

The U.S. Congress is considering several bills that may affect how contact tracing can be legally conducted. For now, the variety of legal implications suggest that IHEs should assure that contact tracing should only occur after obtaining valid user consent and any data obtained is in fact used and stored in the manner promised to users, and not for purposes not covered by consent. 

1 Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 40 (2012) Commt. l (“Courts are split on whether a college owes an affirmative duty to its students. Some of the cases recognizing such a duty are less than ringing endorsements, often relying on other aspects of the relationship between the college and its student to justify imposing a duty. Conversely, a number of the cases declining to recognize a duty speak in narrow, fact-specific terms that do not rule out the possibility of recognizing a duty in other contexts.”)

2 OSHA has provided guidance on how to prepare the workplace for reopening, found at


4 However, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, all medical information about employees or applicants for employment must be collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate files and must be treated as a confidential medical record.

5 See,

6 Many states have adopted unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes similar to Section 5 of the FTC Act, so IHEs also need to be aware of and assure compliance with state law requirements.

written by David Parker

Leave a Comment or Ask a Question