Gard v. United States Department of Education
789 F. Supp. 2d 96
D.D.C.2011Background
- Gard, a DOE employee, claimed DOE violated the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) in deciding to place him on administrative leave in June 1998.
- Prior to action, Gard filed whistleblower complaints with OSC and MSPB proceedings, which culminated in a settlement with DOE in 2002.
- DOE placed Gard on paid administrative leave and banned him from DOE buildings after internal investigations and medical review suggested potential safety concerns.
- Gard alleged that DOE relied on inaccurate or incomplete records to justify adverse actions and sought damages and injunctive relief under the Privacy Act.
- The court granted summary judgment for DOE, dismissing Gard’s Privacy Act claims, after considering CSRA preemption and causation links.
- The court acknowledged Gard’s attempt to reframe personnel actions as Privacy Act violations but found no triable issue on causation or accuracy of records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gard can recover under 552a(g)(1)(C) for an adverse determination tied to allegedly inaccurate records | Gard contends records were inaccurate and caused the adverse action. | DOE did not rely on inaccurate records to cause the administrative leave; no causal link shown. | Summary judgment for DOE; no genuine causal link shown. |
| Whether Privacy Act claims are preempted by the CSRA when related to prohibited personnel actions | Gard argues CSRA preempts Privacy Act claims arising from the same actions. | CSRA creates a remedial framework but does not automatically preclude Privacy Act claims where causation is involved. | CSRA does not per se preempt Privacy Act claims; Gard failed to show a causal link from errors to actions. |
| Whether 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1) permits the maintenance of records Gard alleges are irrelevant or unnecessary | Gard claims records maintained about him are not relevant or necessary. | Records are relevant and necessary for managing employees and agency functions. | Claims under § 552a(e)(1) fail; records were relevant and necessary. |
| Whether 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(2) requiring direct collection from the subject supports Gard's claims that failure to interview him caused an adverse effect | Failure to interview him would have altered the records to avoid adverse action. | No showing that interviewing would have changed the outcome; no adverse effect shown. | Claims under § 552a(e)(2) fail; no adverse effect proven. |
| Whether 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(7), (e)(10), and § 552a(b) disclosures support Gard's remaining Privacy Act claims | Various Privacy Act provisions were violated by dissemination and inadequate safeguards. | Disclosures to a necessary agency employee/contractor and safeguards complied with the Act. | All related claims fail; no Privacy Act violation shown under these provisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartel v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 725 F.2d 1403 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Privacy Act aims to protect accuracy and fairness of records)
- Hubbard v. EPA, 809 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (CSRA interaction with Privacy Act; not a blanket preemption)
- Chambers v. Dep't of Interior, 568 F.3d 998 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (requires proof that agency relied on inaccurate records for adverse determination)
- Deters v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 85 F.3d 655 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (damages under Privacy Act require intentional or willful noncompliance)
- Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (equitable relief not available for Privacy Act damages absent specific provisions)
- Mount v. U.S. Postal Serv., 79 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 1996) (disclosure to medical examiner under contract permissible under Privacy Act)
- Chakravorty v. Dep't of Air Force, 90 M.S.P.R. 304 (MSPB 2001) (preliminary MSPB considerations on whistleblowing and jurisdiction)