|
|
Post by ALJD on Mar 23, 2008 21:55:10 GMT -5
I've gotten a couple private messages so far. Some providing information and support, while others expressing discomfort or even anger at the names being posted on the internet. In my humble opinion, ALJs are public servants paid for by the taxpayers. You can look up the name of any federal judges in any Federal Court in the U.S., ditto with the State Court judges, so I am very doubtful that there is any expectation of privacy or Privacy Act rights by merely posting the name of some new ALJs on this forum. Now phone numbers, private addresses, and e-mails are a different story, and we always had a policy of asking people not to post them in public and we will continue to adhere to that. So legally, I don't believe there is any privacy right to the name of new ALJs and their office locations. However, I would like to follow the will of the majority on this one. Please vote on how you feel about this, and when the poll closes, I'll follow the majority's choice on this one. You can vote here: aljdiscussion.proboards107.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=433 |
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Mar 23, 2008 23:14:08 GMT -5
It would be nice if Falls Church went ahead and released a list of the new hire names by location.  I can't imagine that the taxpayers, at a minimum, aren't entitled to know exactly who they are paying and entrusting to perform these very important responsibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 24, 2008 0:05:42 GMT -5
Anger and discomfort? Wow. That is unhinged.
Your names as federal ALJs are going to be PUBLIC very soon, whether the names appear here or not. You are a PUBLIC servant.
I suggest that anyone who is uncomfortable with the public knowing their name as an ALJ give immediate and serious consderation to resigning now.
There's even an old post on this board to a link that gives name and salary data for ALL federal employees. If this makes you uncomfortable, bail out now.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 24, 2008 0:38:55 GMT -5
Public servant, of course. Yes, in my career I've heard that many times. Most of the time with an emphasis on the servant part. Except, in this case, none of these individuals have even come on-board yet. A bit over-the-top to be posting names all over the internet, no? How about waiting until people start getting paid and report to work before making private lives public?
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Mar 24, 2008 8:05:40 GMT -5
This forum is not exactly cnn.com.
Were you a private practitioner with an unlisted office number?
Were you an NSA, CIA or DEA operative?
If you answered "no" to the above, I don't see that you have an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 24, 2008 8:39:11 GMT -5
This forum is not exactly cnn.com. Were you a private practitioner with an unlisted office number? Were you an NSA, CIA or DEA operative? If you answered "no" to the above, I don't see that you have an issue. I may or may not have an issue with my name being posted. The point is it is not for somebody else to decide. I have yet to be employed by the Agency, I'm not even on payroll, I haven't signed any documents, haven't returned any forms, haven't started packing, etc. But, privacy isn't always about me -- and as lawyers, we need to realize the proverbial "it" is not always about what we want. In fact, I know of at least three FUTURE ALJs that haven't told their friends, their employers -- Simply because their not reporting for another 2 and 1/2 months. What do *you* (insert whomever *you* are here) gain by knowing the names of the selectees? Are you going to send presents? The presents probably couldn't be accepted. Do you want to know if your colleagues have gotten the positions and you haven't? If they haven't told you yet, I'm sure they have their reasons. Knowing the names at this point serves no purpose. The people that need to know (the offices that are receiving the judges) already know. The rest will know soon enough. |
|
|
|
Post by buckeye on Mar 24, 2008 8:39:29 GMT -5
As a Region 5 appointee, I don't have any problem at all with my name being included. I also appreciated learning of future colleagues.
|
|
|
|
Post by testtaker on Mar 24, 2008 12:24:41 GMT -5
In fact, I know of at least three FUTURE ALJs that haven't told their friends, their employers -- Simply because their not reporting for another 2 and 1/2 months. That's the only reason I can see "against" publishing the names. |
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Mar 24, 2008 17:15:23 GMT -5
The publishing of personal identifiable information may violate the Privacy Act, if the source of the disclosed information was derived from a system of records under the Agency's control. It is unclear if the list of names here came from Agency records. But if the information did derive from a "record" in a "system of records" and there is not a "routine use" published by the Agency authorizing such disclosure, it is arguably a Privacy Act violation.
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Mar 24, 2008 17:48:08 GMT -5
The publishing of personal identifiable information may violate the Privacy Act Please... do some fact checking first. Privacy Act only applies to federal government agencies, not private individuals (other causes of action might be vaild depending on the circumstances, but not the Privact Act). See Generally: www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_7_1.html (relevant section reposted below). Similarly, private entities are not subject to the Act. See, e.g., Chimarev v. TD Waterhouse Investor Servs., No. 03-7916, 2004 WL 1013320, at *2 (2d Cir. May 6, 2004); McLeod v. VA, 43 Fed. Appx. 70, 71 (9th Cir. 2002); Sharwell v. Best Buy, No. 00-3206, 2000 WL 1478341, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2000); Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 844 (9th Cir. 1999); Mitchell v. G.E. Am. Spacenet, No. 96-2624, 1997 WL 226369, at *1 (4th Cir. May 7, 1997); Gilbreath v. Guadalupe Hosp. Found., 5 F.3d 785, 791 (5th Cir. 1993); Locke v. MedLab/Gen. Chem., No. 99-2137, 2000 WL 127111 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2000); Payne v. EEOC, No. 99-270, slip op. at 2-3 (D.N.M. July 7, 1999), aff'd, No. 00-2021, 2000 WL 1862659, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2000); Davis v. Boston Edison Co., No. 83-1114-2, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23275 (D. Mass. Jan. 21, 1985); Friedlander v. USPS, No. 84-773, slip op. at 5-6 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 1984); Marshall v. Park Place Hosp., 3 Gov't Disclosure Serv. (P-H) ¶ 83,088, at 83,057 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 1983); see also Bybee v. Pirtle, No. 96-5077, 1996 WL 596458, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 16, 1996) (appellant did not state claim under Privacy Act because it does not apply to individuals who refused to hire him due to his failure to furnish his social security number or fill out W-4 forms for income tax purposes); Steadman v. Rocky Mountain News, No. 95-1102, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 34986, at *4 (10th Cir. Dec. 11, 1995) (Privacy Act claims "cannot be brought against defendant because defendant is not a governmental entity"); United States v. Mercado, No. 94-3976, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2054, at **3-4 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 1995) (appellant's retained defense counsel is not an "agency"). Additionally, neither federal funding nor regulation renders such private entities subject to the Act. See Unt v. Aerospace Corp., 765 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Haynes, 620 F. Supp. 474, 478-79 (M.D. Tenn. 1985); Dennie v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Sch. of Med., 589 F. Supp. 348, 351-52 (D.V.I. 1984), aff'd, 770 F.2d 1068 (3d Cir. 1985) (unpublished table decision); see also United States v. Miller, 643 F.2d 713, 715 n.1 (10th Cir. 1981) (finding that definition of "agency" does not encompass national banks); Boggs v. Se. Tidewater Opportunity Project, No. 2:96cv196, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6977, at **5-9 (E.D. Va. May 22, 1996) (rejecting plaintiff's argument concerning entity's acceptance of federal funds and stating that " t is well settled that the Administrative Procedures [sic] Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 . . . applies only to Federal agencies").
An exception to this rule, however, is the social security number usage restrictions, contained in section 7 of the Privacy Act, which do apply to federal, state, and local government agencies. (section 7, part of Pub. L. No. 93-579, can be found at 5 U.S.C. § 552a note (Disclosure of Social Security Number)). This special provision is discussed below under "Social Security Number Usage."
A civil action under the Privacy Act is properly filed against an "agency" only, not against an individual, a government official, an employee, or the United States. See, e.g., Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency, 876 F.2d 1209, 1215 (5th Cir. 1989); Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 582-83 (5th Cir. 1987); Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1340 (9th Cir. 1987); Hewitt v. Grabicki, 794 F.2d 1373, 1377 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1986); Unt, 765 F.2d at 1447; Brown-Bey v. United States, 720 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir. 1983); Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 159-60 (6th Cir. 1983); Bruce v. United States, 621 F.2d 914, 916 n.2 (8th Cir. 1980); Parks v. IRS, 618 F.2d 677, 684 (10th Cir. 1980); Buckles v. Indian Health Serv./Belcourt Serv. Unit, 268 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1102 (D.N.D. 2003); Stokes v. Barnhart, 257 F. Supp. 2d 288, 299 (D. Me. 2003); Mandel v. OPM, 244 F. Supp. 2d 146, 153 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), aff'd on other grounds, 79 Fed. Appx. 479 (2d Cir. 2003); Mumme v. United States Dep't of Labor, 150 F. Supp. 2d 162, 169 (D. Me. 2001), aff'd, No. 01-2256 (1st Cir. June 12, 2002); Payne v. EEOC, No. 99-270, slip op. at 2 (D.N.M. July 7, 1999), aff'd, No. 00-2021, 2000 WL 1862659, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2000); Armstrong v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 976 F. Supp. 17, 23 (D.D.C. 1997), summary affirmance granted sub nom. Armstrong v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 97-5208, 1998 WL 65543 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 30, 1998); Claasen v. Brown, No. 94-1018, 1996 WL 79490, at **3-4 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 1996); Lloyd v. Coady, No. 94-5842, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2490, at **3-4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 1995), upon consideration of amended complaint, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6258, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 1995); Hill v. Blevins, No. 3-CV-92-0859, slip op. at 4-5 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 1993), aff'd, 19 F.3d 643 (3d Cir. 1994) (unpublished table decision); Malewich, No. 91-4871, slip op. at 19 (D.N.J. Apr. 8, 1993); Sheptin v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 91-2806, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6221, at **5-6 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 1992); Williams v. McCausland, 791 F. Supp. 992, 1000 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Mittleman v. United States Treasury, 773 F. Supp. 442, 450 (D.D.C. 1991); Stephens v. TVA, 754 F. Supp. 579, 580 n.1 (E.D. Tenn. 1990); B.J.R.L. v. Utah, 655 F. Supp. 692, 696-97 (D. Utah 1987); Dennie, 589 F. Supp. at 351-53; Gonzalez v. Leonard, 497 F. Supp. 1058, 1075-76 (D. Conn. 1980); see also Bavido v. Apfel, 215 F.3d 743, 747 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding that Social Security Administration Commissioner was not proper party defendant, but that Social Security Administration had waived any objection as to naming of proper party agency defendant); cf. Stewart v. FBI, No. 97-1595, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21335, at **15-22 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 1999) (magistrate's recommendation) (actions of two Air Force officers assigned to other agencies were not attributable to Air Force; neither were their actions attributable to State Department, because although they both physically worked at embassy and ambassador had supervisory responsibility over all executive branch agency employees, neither reported to State Department or ambassador), adopted, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2954 (D. Or. Mar. 15, 2000). One court also noted, though, that while of course a Privacy Act action "must be maintained against an agency," it is "unaware of any authority which requires the Plaintiffs to specifically name, either as an individual defendant or within the body of a complaint, each and every agency employee who may have contributed to an alleged Privacy Act violation." Buckles v. Indian Health Serv./Belacourt Serv. Unit, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1112 (D.N.D. 2004).
|
|
|
|
Post by skibum on Mar 24, 2008 18:41:11 GMT -5
I agree with the Drone (which is not and should not be interpreted as a derogatory term at all as used herein!) for at least two reasons:
1) This board is not an official agency board operated by a government agency, but rather a privately operated, voluntary chat board.
2) As I understand it, the information is not coming from any agency system of records, but from individual, voluntary disclosure. Consider the opening message on this thread the functional equivalent of a Privacy Act notification. If you don't want to be listed, don't provide your information.
Reasonable minds can and probably will differ.
|
|
cybear
Full Member
sic semper ursi
Posts: 57 
|
Post by cybear on Mar 24, 2008 18:47:47 GMT -5
I have to agree with Buckeye and Morg. I find the disclosure of this information to be important and helpful. Moreover, as important as our jobs will be, we're just going to be ALJs, not cabinet ministers. Perhaps, we need to keep that in perspective.
As a soon to be former private practitioner, I have been resigning from professional boards, meeting with clients in order to transition them to other counsel, closing vendor accounts, etc. That process has been, of necessity and by design, transparent.
I just cannot fathom any justification for the need for secrecy, and I have yet to hear any cogent rationale in its support, though I remain open to persuasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 24, 2008 20:01:09 GMT -5
I have yet to see *one* justification for needing to see the name of anybody being appointed anywhere. Mind you, I don't *need* to see anything. This is all very revealing in many many ways.
I do, however, find it rather amusing that people need to justify why they would want to keep their names out of a public internet website before they have even started a job they may be months away from starting.
By the way skibum, the information being provided is not necessarily being provided by the person being listed. Indeed, it may be provided be somebody else. There is the rub.
This is trading in gossip folks (I'm talking about the names). Just call it what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Mar 24, 2008 21:16:18 GMT -5
...and anyone who disagrees with either point of view will immediately be placed on double-secret probation.
|
|
lee
Full Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by lee on Mar 25, 2008 17:28:26 GMT -5
I agree with Buckeye. I am looking forward to meeting my new colleagues, and hope to see a familiar name posted here.
|
|
