The opinion of the court was delivered by: GEORGE H. REVERCOMB
Before the Court are two dispositive motions, fully briefed, and submitted on the papers: defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs' motion shall be denied and defendants' motion shall be granted.
Plaintiff is employed by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") as a field examiner. In 1979, the NLRB created a computer system capable of tracking and monitoring the approximately 40,000 unfair labor practice and representation cases handled each year by the NLRB. This system, known as the Case Handling Information Processing System, or CHIPS, includes information concerning each case handled by the NLRB, including the case name, the allegations made, the number of employees involved, and the name or agent number of the field examiner assigned to a particular case. CHIPS is used primarily to make statistical information from the NLRB's regional offices available to headquarters in Washington. Although no formal system is used by the NLRB to group or utilize information regarding a particular field examiner, experienced NLRB supervisors may have the capability to conduct searches in CHIPS to retrieve information about an individual examiner.
Such a personalized search forms the basis of this lawsuit. On July 12, 1991, defendant Solien conducted a search in CHIPS to retrieve information about cases handled by plaintiff Tobey over the previous three years. This information was then used against Tobey in a grievance arbitration involving, inter alia, Solien's removal of Tobey from a promotion roster. The information extracted from CHIPS revealed the dates of significant action on cases handled by Tobey, such as the date a charge was filed and the date a charge was dismissed or the case closed. This information is probative of whether Tobey has met the timeliness guidelines set by the NLRB for the handling of cases.
Plaintiffs argue that the use of information extracted from CHIPS to evaluate Tobey's work performance is a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, which regulates the collection, maintenance, and use of personal information about individuals by government entities. Defendants concede that CHIPS does not conform to the requirements of the Privacy Act, but argue that the information contained in CHIPS does not fall within the purview of the statute. The issue is thus clearly defined. If the information extracted from CHIPS regarding plaintiff Tobey is within the jurisdiction of the statute, the plaintiffs are entitle to summary judgment because the statute has been violated per se. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1). If, however, the information about Tobey is not regulated by the statute, then plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the statute and defendants are entitled to a dismissal.
The Privacy Act regulates "systems of records" maintained by public agencies. A "system of records" is defined as "a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual . . . ." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5). A "record" is
any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual . . . .
Id. § 552a(a)(4). The issue to be resolved by the Court in this case is whether the information contained in CHIPS pertaining to plaintiff Tobey is a "record" within the meaning of the statute.
In support of their argument that the information contained in CHIPS regarding Tobey is a "record," plaintiffs rely in part on a series of internal memoranda written by counsel for the NLRB between 1987 and 1991. See Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, at Ex. A, C, D, E, & F. These memoranda state the opinion of the NLRB that CHIPS did not conform to the requirements of the Privacy Act, that information retrieved from CHIPS could be used to assist regional managers in evaluating the performance of field examiners, and that, until compliance with the Privacy Act was achieved, retrieval of information by name or personal identifier was not legal.
These memoranda are probative of the NLRB's position with respect to the protection to be given information available from CHIPS as well as the potential uses of information retrieved from that system. The legal conclusions of the NLRB's counsel, however, do not bind this Court. See Donald v. Orfila, 618 F. Supp. 645, 647 n.1 (D.D.C. 1985), aff'd, 252 U.S. App. D.C. 134, 788 F.2d 36 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Court's inquiry is not focused upon the potential use of information contained in CHIPS, but whether the information itself is of the type sought to be protected by the Privacy Act. See Federal Labor Relations Auth. v. United States Dep't of Commerce, 295 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 962 F.2d 1055, 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
Plaintiffs cite Federal Labor Relations Authority v. United States Department of Commerce for the principle that federal employees "have a substantial interest in maintaining the privacy of their evaluations." Id. at 1059. In that case, the Court of Appeals, balancing the competing interests of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, held that the National Weather Service rightly refused to disclose the names of employees who had been given outstanding or commendable personnel evaluations. To do so, the Court reasoned, "'may well embarrass an individual or incite jealousy in his or her co-workers.'" Id. (quoting Ripskis v. Department of Housing & Urban Dev., 241 U.S. App. D.C. 8, 746 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
As with the NLRB's internal memoranda, the holding in Federal Labor Relations Authority v. United States Department of Commerce is inapposite in the present action because the information collected and used against plaintiff Tobey is not evaluative in nature, nor is it personal. Rather, the information concerning Tobey pertains to official government business, i.e., keeping track of NLRB cases and the agents assigned to handle them. "Standing by itself, or otherwise, it reveals nothing about [Tobey's] private affairs so as to trigger the protective provisions of the Privacy Act." Houston v. United States Dep't of Treasury, 494 F. Supp. 24, 28-29 (D.D.C. 1979). In Houston, this Court held that no violation of the Privacy Act occurred from the placement in personnel files of informal notes made by a supervisor during conversations regarding the status of cases assigned to plaintiff, an internal revenue agent, or the use of those notes during subsequent evaluation ...