This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Freedom of Information Act

Rosemary Greenlaw v. Eugene Scalia

Published: Sep. 11, 2020 | Result Date: Jul. 15, 2020 |

Case number: 18-cv-04932-VKD Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Virginia K. DeMarchi

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


Defendant

James A. Scharf
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

Plaintiff Rosemary Greenlaw worked as an administrative assistant for defendant Occupational Safety and Health Administration. While working as an administrative assistant, plaintiff applied for an Investigator position which was denied. After plaintiff noticed that there was discrepancy in her pay and work duties, plaintiff reported it to defendant but was terminated in response. Plaintiff submitted a Freedom of Information Act request. Plaintiff asked for copies of files from her computer when plaintiff worked for OSHA, labeled as "HR" and "Training." OSHA produced the documents with redactions. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor asserting claims for age and disability discrimination, retaliation for engaging in protection conduct and violation of the FOIA and the Privacy Act. The district court dismissed all of plaintiff's claims except for the FOIA and the Privacy Act claims. The Secretary moved for summary judgment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the Secretary produced documents that were "entirely blacked out." Plaintiff contended that she was entitled to the documents she requested and the Secretary's denial of her records from OSHA prevented plaintiff from having a fair hearing on her discrimination claims against OSHA.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The Secretary contended that the redactions were permitted under FOIA Exemption 6. The Secretary also contended that all documents were subsequently produced without redactions including those that were initially redacted. Further, the Secretary contended that the Privacy Act did not apply because plaintiff requested documents from her work computer which were not under the scope of "system of records" within the meaning of the Privacy Act.

Result

The district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff presented no evidence to dispute the Secretary's contentions that it provided documents to plaintiff in unredacted form and plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the disclosed documents were part of a "system of records."


#135408

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390