Hill v. U.S. Department of Defense
70 F. Supp. 3d 17
D.D.C.2014Background
- Hill, a former DOD technical information specialist, was terminated on August 10, 2007.
- Supervisors disclosed Hill’s confidential documents, including materials related to her termination and medical leave, to a former supervisor who left the DOD.
- Hill filed a Privacy Act action alleging adverse effects (mental distress, emotional trauma, embarrassment, etc.) and sought psychological services and lost employment references.
- The court previously granted partial summary judgment to the DOD on some counts and denied others (Hill v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 981 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013)).
- DOD moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing Hill failed to plead actual damages post-FAA v. Cooper; Hill moved to amend to cure deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment should be allowed | Amendment cures Cooper deficiencies | Delay/prejudice and futility | Amendment granted |
| Whether amended complaint properly pleads actual damages under Cooper | Proposed amendment pleads pecuniary damages | Added damages still insufficient to show proximate causation | Amended damages pleadings sufficient; non-pecuniary damages still barred |
| Whether non-pecuniary damages are barred by Cooper and should be dismissed | Non-pecuniary damages permissible with pecuniary proof | Cooper bars non-pecuniary damages | Non-pecuniary damages dismissed; punitive damages dismissed |
| Whether the delay in seeking leave to amend prejudiced the DOD | Delay not prejudicial given no prejudice shown | Delay prejudicial | No undue delay or prejudice; leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- FAA v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1441 (2012) (Privacy Act damages limited to pecuniary harm; no mental distress recovery)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must be plausible on their face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleadings must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (replaced by Iqbal/Twombly standard for pleadings)
- Wilderness Soc. v. Griles, 824 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (leave to amend denied after dispositive motions in similar contexts)
- Moldea v. N.Y. Times Co., 793 F. Supp. 338 (D.D.C. 1992) (illustrates futility when amendment could not survive motion to dismiss)
- Sabre Int’l Sec. v. Torres Advanced Enter. Solutions, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2011) (pleading proximate causation with plausible link between act and damages)