Roland Ralph Wilborn v. Department of Health and Human Services

Caution
49 F.3d 597·95 Daily Journal DAR 3189·1995 WL 97477·10 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 619·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 4674
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 199593-35048California2,891 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tashima, J.

This is an action brought under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. The district court granted the motion of defendant Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) for summary judgment, from which plaintiff Wilborn has appealed. The appeal is timely and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

I. THE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Appellant Wilborn was employed as a staff attorney/deeision writer by HHS in Eugene, Oregon, from August, 1986, through August, 1987. His supervisor during this period was the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge Stephen P. Kramer (the “ALJ”). Wil-born’s primary job duty was to write decisions in Social Security disability cases adjudicated by the ALJ and one other judge. In May, 1987, the ALJ, acting under the direction of superiors, informed Wilborn that the agency was dissatisfied with the number of decisions he was writing and told him he would be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). Thereafter, the ALJ analyzed Wilborn’s job performance and generated a PIP, using statistical data from the agency’s records. The PIP, with attached monthly production reports, was issued on June 1, 1987. One copy was given to Wil-born and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.