Shannon v. General Elec. Co.
Decision Date | 28 January 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-CV-0696.,92-CV-0696. |
Citation | 812 F. Supp. 308 |
Parties | John P. SHANNON, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, United States Department of Energy, United States Department of Energy Office of the Inspector General and the United States Office of Personnel Management, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O'Shea, Albany, N.Y. (Ronald G. Dunn, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Sidley & Austin, New York City (Richard A. Stanley, of counsel), for General Electric Co.
Richard Thornburgh, Att. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Federal Programs Branch, Washington, D.C. (Paul W. Bridenhagen, Elizabeth A. Pugh, of counsel), for the Federal Defendants.1
The plaintiff, a retired employee of defendant General Electric Company hereinafter referred to as "GE", filed the above-captioned lawsuit on May 29, 1992. He seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and for violations of his constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) and its progeny. In his complaint, the plaintiff asserts seventeen causes of action as follows (numbered as they are numbered in the complaint), the first sixteen being alleged as violations of the Privacy Act and the last two being violations of the Bivens-type:
Prior to answering the complaint, and prior to any discovery in this matter, the defendants have filed the following motions:
The federal defendants:
1) for summary judgment on the first and second causes of action, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2) for dismissal of the twelfth, thirteen and fifteenth causes of action, pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on statute of limitations grounds; and
3) for dismissal of the fifteenth and seventeenth causes of action, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
GE:
1) for dismissal of the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and fourteenth causes of action, pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on statute of limitations grounds;
2) for dismissal of the sixteenth cause of action, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
3) for sanctions against the plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff has responded to these motions and the defendants have, with leave of court, submitted reply papers. Oral argument was thereafter presented on December 4, 1992 in Albany, New York, at which time this court reserved decision. After due deliberation on the issues presented, the following constitutes the Memorandum-Decision and Order of this court:
Factual Background
The plaintiff worked at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory hereinafter referred to as "KAPL" in Niskaya, New York, from December 1959 until January 1990, at which time he retired. See Complaint at ¶ 4; Federal Defendants' 10J Statement at ¶ 1. KAPL is a laboratory that DOE owns and operates for the purpose of research and for the production of nuclear-powered military craft and nuclear weaponry. GE, pursuant to a contract with DOE, operates KAPL under the direct supervision, control and oversight of DOE. See Complaint at ¶¶ 5, 6 & 10; Federal Defendants' 10J Statement at ¶ 2.
DOE has an office on the KAPL site called Schenectady Naval Reactors (SNR). SNR is staffed by approximately 50 DOE employees who are responsible for the supervision and oversight of GE's operation of KAPL. See Complaint at ¶ 11.
By the terms of the GE-DOE contract, GE agreed to comply with the provisions of the Privacy Act in all of its dealings with employees at KAPL and to safeguard the disclosure of documents protected by the Privacy Act. See Complaint at ¶¶ 12 & 13.
In 1985, the plaintiff was the Manager of Nuclear Criticality Safety/Industrial Safety and Industrial Hygiene hereinafter referred to as "Nuclear Criticality" at KAPL. See Federal Defendants' 10J Statement at ¶ 3. As Manager of Nuclear Criticality, the plaintiff, on November 26, 1985, published a Safety Inspection Report that was, as the plaintiff characterizes it, "very critical" of health and safety conditions at KAPL's Kesselring Site Operations hereinafter referred to as "Kesselring". See Complaint at ¶¶ 16, 17; Federal Defendants' 10J Statement at ¶ 4.
On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Biase v. Kaplan
...v. Gilley, 895 F.2d 797, 804 (D.C.Cir.1990), aff'd, 500 U.S. 226, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991); Shannon v. General Electric Co., 812 F.Supp. 308, 322 (N.D.N.Y.1993). As one court has Because conclusory allegations of unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct will not withstand......
-
Commodari v. Long Island University
...(D.C.Cir.1994) (holding that, like federal agencies, unincorporated associations may not be sued under Bivens); Shannon v. General Elec. Co., 812 F.Supp. 308, 323 (N.D.N.Y. 1993) (holding that Bivens does not apply to private However, even if this court were to recognize a Bivens action aga......
-
Brockway v. VA Conn. HealthCare Sys.
...NO. 08 Civ. 5777 (PAC)(FM), 2010 WL 2985906, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2010); Baker, 943 F. Supp. at 273 (citing Shannon v. Gen. Elec. Co., 812 F. Supp. 308, 319 (N.D.N.Y. 1993)). With respect to a cause of action arising under the Privacy Act, the statute of limitations starts to run "when ......
-
Cross v. Potter
...what constitutional right(s) is/are violated" and "how the(se) right(s) was/were violated and by whom." Shannon v. General Elec. Co., 812 F. Supp. 308, 322-23 (N.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 186 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment pertaining to Plaintiff's ......
-
20. Privacy Act
...with regard to “agency” as used in Privacy Act due to different purposes that two statutes serve); Shannon v. General Elec. Co. , 812 F. Supp. 308, 313, 315 n.5 (N.D.N.Y. 1993) (noting that there is “no dispute” that GE falls within definition of “agency” subject to requirements of Privacy ......