Opinion ID: 155524
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maintenance of Disciplinary Records

Text: 26 As a threshold matter, Pippinger claims that the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (1994), prohibits the IRS from maintaining disciplinary records of its employees in the ALERTS system, because the ALERTS system is not adequately described in the Federal Register. In support of this claim, Pippinger cites 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4) (1994), which provides that: 27 Each agency that maintains a system of records shall ... publish in the Federal Register upon establishment or revision a notice of the existence and character of the system of records, which notice shall include-- 28 (A) the name and location of the system; 29 (B) the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system; 30 (C) the categories of records maintained in the system; 31 (D) each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use; 32 (E) the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records; 33 (F) the title and business address of the agency official who is responsible for the system of records; 34 (G) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be notified at his request if the system of records contains a record pertaining to him; 35 (H) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be notified at his request how he can gain access to any record pertaining to him contained in the system of records, and how he can contest its content; and 36 (I) the categories of sources of records in the system. 37 In particular, Pippinger claims that the IRS failed to comply with subsections (A) through (E) of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4) (1994). With respect to subsections (B) through (E), Pippinger's claim is predicated on his factual misconception that the IRS never published any notice regarding the keeping of records on disciplinary actions taken against employees. This assertion is simply incorrect. 38 The ALERTS system contains a limited subset of the information authorized in two systems that are described in the Federal Register: (1) the Appeals, Grievance, and Complaint System; and (2) the General Personnel and Payroll [Records] System. 57 Fed.Reg. 14,056-59 (1992). By erroneously equating the ALERTS system just with the Appeals, Grievance, and Complaint System, Pippinger has completely ignored the General Personnel and Payroll Records System, data from which is also stored in the ALERTS system. 39 The General Personnel and Payroll Records System is defined in the Federal Register to cover [p]rospective, current and former employees of the IRS. 57 Fed.Reg. 14,056, 14,058 (1992). This statement satisfies the publication requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(B) (1994). Pippinger falls within the category of individuals covered. 40 The General Personnel and Payroll Records System is also defined in the Federal Register to include a variety of records relating to personnel actions and determinations made about an individual while employed in the Federal service. Id. The categories of records include reprimands; adverse or disciplinary charges; ... [and] adverse and disciplinary action files. Id.; see also 5 C.F.R. § 293.403(b) (providing numerous examples of employee performance-related records which may be maintained as a system of records within the meaning of the Privacy Act). This statement satisfies the publication requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(C) (1994). Pippinger's disciplinary records fall within the category of records covered. 41 The Federal Register contains an extensive section defining the Routine uses of records maintained in the [General Personnel and Payroll Records System], including categories of users and the purposes of such uses. 57 Fed. Reg. 14,056, 14,058-59 (1992). One such routine use of records is to provide the records to the Merit Systems Protection Board and other federal agencies for the purpose of properly administering Federal Personnel systems ... in accordance with applicable laws, Executive Orders, and applicable regulations. Id. at 14,059. This section satisfies the publication requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(D) (1994). Pippinger's personnel records were maintained, in part, so that they could be made available to the Merit Systems Protection Board if necessary, in order properly to administer the IRS's personnel systems. This use falls within the category of routine uses covered in the Federal Register. 42 Finally, the policies and practices of the IRS regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records contained in the General Personnel and Payroll Records System were all published in the Federal Register. See 57 Fed.Reg. 14,056, 14,059 (1992). The publication requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(E) (1994) were thus satisfied. 43 Pippinger does, however, state one facially valid claim against the legality of the ALERTS system. He correctly notes that the name and location of the ALERTS system have never been published in the Federal Register, which he claims is in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(A) (1994). Thus, we must decide whether the abstraction of certain individual records from a system of records, or the transcription of such an abstract from paper to computer or electronic storage media, constitutes the creation of a new system of records under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5) (1994), where, as here, the electronic abstract may be accessed only by the same users, and only for the same purposes, as the original system of records. 3 44 Although no court, to our knowledge, has addressed these questions directly, there is limited case authority consistent with the proposition that abstraction of individual records from a system of records does not by itself create a new system of records. In Henke v. United States Dep't of Commerce, 83 F.3d 1453, 1459-61 (D.C.Cir.1996), the court addressed whether an agency can be deemed to maintain a computerized system of records where it has the capability to retrieve information about an individual by name, but not the practice of doing so. Although this is not the question before us, the approach of the Henke court to determining the meaning of a system of records under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5) is instructive. 45 In holding that the records at issue there did not constitute a system of records under the Privacy Act, the Henke court noted that the phrase system of records should be narrowly construed, because under an expansive reading of the phrase: 46 an agency faces the threat of being found retrospectively to be maintaining a system of records it did not even know existed, simply by dint of a potential use it neither engaged in nor contemplated. This in turn would create serious compliance problems for the agency, because if it had not recognized that it maintained a system of records and had therefore not published notice of its system in the Federal Register, then neither would it have followed the procedures necessary [under the Privacy Act].... 47 Henke, 83 F.3d at 1461; see also Williams v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 104 F.3d 670, 674 (4th Cir.1997) (Courts have construed § 552a(a)(5) narrowly) (citing cases). 48 The Henke court expressly disclaimed suggesting that an agency may simply refuse to acknowledge that it maintains a system of records and thereby insulate itself from the reach of the Privacy Act. Henke, 83 F.3d at 1461. However, it opined that a major factor in determining whether a system of records exists is the purpose for which the information on individuals is being gathered, an approach which is consistent with Congress' distinction between a mere group of records and a system of records. Id. (emphasis in original). 49 In the present case, Pippinger has presented no evidence suggesting that the records abstracted from the Appeals, Grievance, and Complaint System and the General Personnel and Payroll Records System and stored in the ALERTS computer system were used for any purposes other than the purposes, published in the Federal Register, for which those records were intended. Similarly, he has presented no evidence that the abstracted records could be accessed via the ALERTS system by anyone not identified in the Federal Register as an authorized user of the same records contained in the Appeals, Grievance, and Complaint System or the General Personnel and Payroll Records System. Thus, consistent with Henke, a properly narrow construction of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5) leads to the conclusion that ALERTS is not a system of records. 50 We turn then to the question of whether transcription of a system of records from paper to computer or electronic storage media necessarily constitutes the creation of a new system of records under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5) (1994). In addition to requiring publication of the establishment and existence of a government-maintained system of records, the Privacy Act also requires government agencies to publish in the Federal Register notice of revisions in the character of existing systems of records. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4) (1994). For this reason, one circuit court recently remanded a Privacy Act case to the district court to determine whether a government agency had, in fact, transferred a system of records stored in paper documents to a digitally stored format. Williams v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 104 F.3d 670, 676 (4th Cir.1997). In doing so, the Williams court suggested the possibility that if such a change had occurred without proper publication, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4) would have been violated. Id. 51 We need not, in the present case, decide whether or not we agree with the Williams court that routine transcription of records from paper to computer or electronic storage media always necessitates publication in the Federal Register. Here, unlike in Williams, the IRS properly published the fact that records maintained in both the Appeals, Grievances and Complaint System and the General Personnel and Payroll Records System would be stored on magnetic media. See 57 Fed.Reg. 14,057 (1992) (Appeals, Grievances and Complaint System records will be stored on magnetic media); 57 Fed.Reg. 14,059 (1992) (General Personnel and Payroll Records System records will be stored on magnetic media and discs). Because the transcription of records stored in the Appeals, Grievances and Complaint System and the General Personnel and Payroll Records System to magnetic media was contemplated and announced in the Federal Register, the character of the records was not revised when the records were in fact transcribed to the ALERTS system. 52 In addition, even if the ALERTS system were a separate system of records under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e) (1994), Pippinger would lack standing to challenge the IRS's failure to publish the ALERTS system's name and location in the Federal Register. In its civil remedies subsection, the Privacy Act provides that: 53 Whenever any agency ... fails to comply with [5 U.S.C. § 552a], ... in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual, the individual may bring a civil action against the agency.... 54 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(D) (1994) (emphasis added). 55 Here, Pippinger has introduced no evidence tending to suggest that the mere maintenance in the ALERTS system of records that could be lawfully maintained by the IRS in other systems of records adversely affected him in any way. See Parks v. Internal Revenue Serv., 618 F.2d 677, 682 (10th Cir.1980) (Privacy Act plaintiff must be adversely affected by the violation in order to state a cause of action). Indeed, when Pippinger requested copies of all IRS records pertaining to him, the ALERTS system assisted the IRS in locating Pippinger's two records--which were kept in two different systems--in order to provide them to him. Thus, even if the ALERTS system were a system of records subject to the publication requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4)(A) (1994), Pippinger would not recover for the IRS's technical failure to comply with those requirements.