Greenlaw v. Su

Background

Rosemary Greenlaw sued the Secretary of Labor. She originally asserted claims involving alleged age and disability discrimination, retaliation for protected conduct, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the Privacy Act. The court had dismissed all claims except the FOIA and Privacy Act claims. Greenlaw proceeded without a lawyer.

Greenlaw had worked as an administrative assistant for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) beginning in April 2016. She later requested records from folders on her work computer, including human-resources records, leave and earnings statements, training certificates, and emails concerning her employment.

Records Produced

The Department of Labor processed Greenlaw’s requests through several request numbers. It provided leave and earnings statements, Standard Form 50 documents, training certificates, and other responsive records. OSHA later processed approximately 940 pages from Greenlaw’s work computer and produced approximately 690 pages, some with redactions. OSHA also sent 251 pages to the Department’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management for review; that office later produced all 251 pages without redactions and resent them after Greenlaw reported difficulty accessing them.

OSHA also agreed to produce position descriptions that had previously been redacted and stated that it did so through government counsel. The remaining redactions appeared on approximately 73 pages and involved identifying information, including names, contact information, biographical information, and signatures. The Secretary relied on FOIA exemptions protecting certain personal-privacy interests. Greenlaw’s opposition focused on pages she said were entirely blacked out and missing from the Secretary’s document index.

Legal Standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must provide evidence showing a genuine factual dispute rather than relying only on allegations or denials.

For FOIA cases, agencies generally must provide a Vaughn index and detailed affidavits identifying withheld documents, the exemptions claimed, and why those exemptions apply.

FOIA Analysis

The court noted that Greenlaw did not appear to challenge the particular redactions involving other people’s identifying information. Instead, she argued that certain pages had not been properly accounted for in the Secretary’s Vaughn index.

The Secretary’s counsel stated that all of the pages identified by Greenlaw had been produced to her without redactions. The court found that Greenlaw presented no evidence to the contrary. It therefore concluded that the Secretary was entitled to summary judgment on the alleged FOIA violation.

Privacy Act Analysis

Greenlaw also argued that the Privacy Act entitled her to the requested documents because she had been denied access to personal records maintained by her former employer.

The Privacy Act gives an individual access to records about herself that are contained in an agency “system of records.” The court explained that a system of records is a group of agency records from which information is retrieved by an individual’s name or another identifying detail. The Secretary argued that Greenlaw’s work-computer folders did not qualify because they were not among the Department of Labor’s listed systems of records and were not used to systematically file and retrieve information by name or identifying number.

The court agreed that the Secretary had shown that the folders Greenlaw created on her work computer were not a Privacy Act system of records. Because Greenlaw produced no evidence creating a genuine dispute about that issue, the court held that summary judgment for the Secretary was warranted on the Privacy Act claim.

Disposition

The court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.

The supplied case name is “Greenlaw v. Su,” while this order’s caption identifies Eugene Scalia as the substituted defendant and refers to him as the Secretary of Labor.