Summary of McCready v. Nicholson Appellate Decision
On September 21, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision this week which rejected the government’s attempt to limit individual rights under the Privacy Act, a Watergate-era statute.
Interpreting the Privacy Act, the court narrowed the circumstances under which the federal government can assert a technical defense that it uses frequently to limit individual rights under the Act. Attorneys associated with the case believe that expansion of individual rights under the law will force federal agencies across the country to re-examine how they create, handle, and maintain millions of records concerning private individuals.
As the Court of Appeals noted, the Privacy Act “safeguards the public from unwarranted collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal information contained in agency records...by allowing an individual to participate in ensuring that his records are accurate and properly used.” However, the Privacy Act also created a series of hurdles and technical barriers for individuals seeking to protect the accuracy of information about themselves. One such barrier is that the record the individual is challenging must be in a “system of records,” as defined by the act. The government has asserted that the “system of records” requirement applies to almost all portions of the act.
This week, the D.C. Court of Appeals for the first time rejected such a broad reading of the Act by the government. In McCready v. Nicholson (No. 04-5425), the D.C. Circuit held that an individual who can show that the government unfairly allowed a record to be used in an adverse determination against the individual can challenge the accuracy of the record without having to establish where the government filed or deposited the record.
“Where an individual can show that an adverse determination has been made based upon a specific, inaccurate record, Congress may well have thought as the text of its statute indicates that inquiring into whether the record was within a ‘system’ was irrelevant,” the court concluded.
Plaintiffs in this case were represented by Richard Gordin and Joe Cosby of the Washington, DC law firm of Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale, PLLC.