Nat. Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. U.S. Postal Serv.
| Decision Date | 30 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 08 Civ. 458 (DC).,08 Civ. 458 (DC). |
| Citation | 604 F.Supp.2d 665 |
| Parties | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO, and American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, by Bruce H. Simon, Esq., Peter D. DeChiara, Esq., Claire Tuck, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO.
O'Donnell, Schwartz & Anderson, PC, by Darryl J. Anderson, Esq., Washington, DC, Spivak Liption LLP, by Adrienee L. Saldana, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York by Lara K. Eshkenazi, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, New York, NY, for Defendants.
In this case, two labor unions representing postal employees allege that the United States Postal Service (the "USPS") and its Office of Inspector General ("OIG") have instituted an unlawful policy of obtaining employees' personal medical information from health care providers without the employees' knowledge or consent. The unions allege that the policy is unlawful and unconstitutional and request that the Court enjoin the USPS from continuing the practice. The USPS moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), contending that the unions do not have associational standing to bring this suit. Alternatively, the USPS moves to dismiss the first count of plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied, in both respects.
Plaintiff National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO ("NALC"), is a labor union and association of active and retired postal employees. (Compl. ¶ 11). It is the exclusive collective bargaining representative for more than 200,000 "city letter carriers" employed by USPS. (Id.).
Plaintiff American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO ("APWU"), is a labor union and association of postal employees. (Id. ¶ 12). APWU represents more than 260,000 USPS employees who work in Clerk, Maintenance, and Motor Vehicle Services. (Id.).
The USPS is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the government of the United States. (Id. ¶ 9). OIG is an independent agency within, and part of, USPS. (Id. ¶ 10). OIG was created and is governed by the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C.App. 3, § 8G(b). (Id.).
NALC and APWU are parties to separate collective bargaining agreements with the USPS, that set forth terms and conditions of their members' employment. (Id. ¶ 11, 12).
For purposes of this motion, the facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true.
The USPS routinely acquires employees' medical information for a variety of reasons, including, inter alia, determining whether injured employees are fit for duty or eligible for disability retirement. (Id. ¶ 14). The USPS's longstanding practice was to request the information directly from its employees. (Id.).
In 2006, defendants instituted a new policy (the "Policy") authorizing OIG agents to contact—ex parte—employees' physicians and medical care providers to obtain medical information. (Id. ¶ 16). The affected employees are neither aware of such communications nor do they consent to the release of their medical information. (Id.). The information is sought in connection with investigations into potential criminal misconduct and eligibility for health benefits and workers' compensation. (Id.). Medical information is also sought for issues relating to job performance and disciplinary action. (Id.).
To obtain the employees' medical records, OIG agents present health care providers with a letter (the "HCP letter") claiming that defendants have a right to review the protected health information. (Id. ¶ 19). The HCP letters "differ somewhat from case to case, but are generally similar in form." (Id.). An example of an HCP letter advises:
This letter provides you with the statutory and regulatory authority that allows you to release protected health information requested by the [OIG] of the [USPS] when it is engaged in oversight activities involving the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP).
Health care providers such as yourself are permitted to disclose protected health information to health oversight agencies without the written consent or authorization of the individual when these agencies are conducting oversight activities authorized by law. The review of protected health information is recognized as a necessary oversight activity because it is relevant in determining beneficiary eligibility. 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(d)(1)(iii).
[OIG] is a health oversight agency because it oversees through our investigations a government program in which health information is necessary to determine eligibility or compliance. 45 C.F.R. § 164.501.
Furthermore, when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) first proposed rules to implement the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1995 (HIPAA), it included a list of agencies that could be health oversight agencies. HHS listed "Offices of Inspectors General of federal agencies" as health oversight agencies.
Finally, the Inspector General Act of 1978 authorized [OIG] to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse in Postal Service programs and operations, one of which programs is the Postal Service's participation in OWCP. 5 U.S.C.App. 3 § 6(a)(4).
Normally, the individual would have a right to know that disclosure of the individual's protected health information had been made. However, because alerting the individual of this disclosure would likely jeopardize our oversight activities, we request at this time that you refrain from notifying the individual of your disclosure for one year from the date of this letter. Regulations authorize you to withhold notification under these circumstances. 45 C.F.R. § 164.528(a)(2)(II)(C).
(Compl. Ex. A).
NALC learned of defendants' Policy in September 2007. William H. Young, NALC President, immediately wrote to the USPS Board of Governors demanding that it direct OIG to stop gathering employees' health information without their knowledge or consent. (Compl. Ex. B). On November 2, 2007, the Board of Governors responded, explaining:
The Postal Service has reviewed the issues raised in your letter, and concluded that [OIG] is operating within the statutory authority of HIPAA, as well as its own statutory authority under the provision of Title 39 and the Inspector General Act of 1978 in seeking these records.
(Compl. Ex. C).
Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 17, 2008. The complaint alleges that the Policy: (1) constitutes ultra vires conduct because it exceeds the defendants' statutory authority under the Inspector General Act (the "IG Act") in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-2, and the Privacy Act of 1974 (the "Privacy Act"), 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(2); (2) violates postal employees' constitutional right to privacy; and (3) violates the Fourth Amendment.
On June 6, 2008, the Government moved to dismiss the complaint.
The USPS argues that the complaint must be dismissed because plaintiffs do not have associational standing to bring this action. First, I discuss the standards governing subject matter jurisdiction and associational standing. I then discuss plaintiffs' claims in turn. For each claim, I discuss the applicable law and the corresponding factual inquiry necessary to resolve the claim. I conclude that individualized proof is not necessary to resolve any of the three claims. I conclude further that the first count of the complaint states a plausible claim. Accordingly, the Government's motion to dismiss is denied. Plaintiffs may proceed with this case.
As the parties "seeking to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court," Scelsa v. City Univ. of New York, 76 F.3d 37, 40 (2d Cir.1996), plaintiffs must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that there is subject matter jurisdiction. Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir.2005). Though "no presumptive truthfulness attaches to the complaint's jurisdictional allegations," Guadagno v. Wallack Ader Levithan Assocs., 932 F.Supp. 94, 95 (S.D.N.Y.1996), a court should "`constru[e] all ambiguities and draw[ ] all inferences' in a plaintiff's favor." Aurecchione, 426 F.3d at 638 (quoting Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000)); see also Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 83 (2d Cir.2008). Contested jurisdictional allegations need not be accepted as true, and the Court may consider matters outside the complaint. Jarvis v. Cardillo, No. 98 Civ. 5793(RWS), 1999 WL 187205, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 1999).
An association that has not itself suffered an injury has standing to sue on behalf of its members if it meets the standard set out by the Supreme Court in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). Under Hunt, an association has standing to sue on behalf of its members when: "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Id. at 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434.
The third prong of the Hunt test is a prudential consideration, not a constitutional requirement. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turiano v. City of Phx.
...where the employee "purchased the safe herself, kept it locked, and used it to store personal items"); Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. USPS , 604 F. Supp. 2d 665, 675–76 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that the search of employee's medical records in the possession of the employee's healthcare p......
-
Norcal Tea Party Patriots v. Internal Revenue Serv.
...MDL Docket No. 1796, 2007 WL 7621261, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2007) (adopting Sessions); but see Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. U.S. Postal Serv., 604 F. Supp. 2d 665, 670-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (allowing Privacy Act claim based on associational standing). This Court need not decide in this c......
-
Cunningham v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor
...involved any area physically outside of the workplace” (National Assn. of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO v. United States Postal Serv., 604 F.Supp.2d 665, 675–676 [S.D.N.Y.2009] [emphasis added and citation omitted] ). The majority's decision extends “the boundaries of the workplace” (O'Connor, 4......
-
Cunningham v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor
...Court in reaching its holding involved any area physically outside of the workplace” (National Assn. of Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO v. United States Postal Serv., 604 F.Supp.2d 665, 675–676 [S.D.N.Y.2009] [emphasis added and citation omitted] ). The majority's decision extends “the boundaries ......