NALC, APWU win key ruling in OIG case
NALC and the APWU scored an important preliminary victory in their law suit against the Postal Service and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). In a ruling issued March 30, U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case. The law suit, which had been held in abeyance pending the decision on the motion, will now proceed for consideration of the merits.
“I am delighted with this ruling,” President Bill Young said, “it will give us a chance to expose the lawlessness of an out-of-control OIG and to put a stop to the violation of our members’ privacy rights.”
NALC and APWU filed their joint lawsuit against the Postal Service and the (OIG) on January 17, 2008 in the federal district court in New York City,
seeking to stop OIG agents from obtaining confidential medical information about employees without their knowledge or consent. The controversy over the OIG’s unlawful practices came to light in September, 2007 when NALC obtained a copy of a standard form letter used by OIG agents when demanding that physicians and other health care providers disclose sensitive health information. This information is used to assist agents in their investigations of alleged employee misconduct. The standard letter expressly advises the physician not to inform the patient – the affected employee – of this disclosure.
The NALC-APWU suit alleges that the OIG’s practice violates federal statutes and regulations, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The complaint seeks an injunction requiring the Postal Service and the OIG to cease and desist.
On June 6, 2008, the Service and the OIG responded to the suit by filing a motion to dismiss the Unions’ complaint. They argued that the Unions lacked “associational standing” to sue on behalf of their members whose rights had allegedly been violated. The defendants also argued that the Unions’ allegations failed to establish a violation of the law.
In his ruling Judge Chin rejected each of the USPS/OIG arguments and completely upheld the Unions’ position:
"The [Unions’] claim adequately alleges that OIG exceeds its authority by requesting protected health information directly from employees’ health care providers without their knowledge or consent. Furthermore, the “adverse effect” on the employees – necessary to state a Privacy Act violation . . . – is destruction of the confidentiality of the employees’ protected health information and violation of the right to privacy. . . ."
Judge Chin has scheduled a status conference with the parties’ attorneys for April 6 to discuss the next steps to be taken in the case.
The law suit is not a class action in which individual employees can join. No money damages are being sought. |
