United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

1994-02-23

Headline: Federal employees’ home addresses are protected: Court barred agencies from releasing addresses to unions, upholding Privacy Act limits and making it harder for public-sector unions to get home contact lists.

Holding: The Court held that releasing federal employees' home addresses to their union representative would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy under FOIA, so the Privacy Act prohibits agencies from disclosing those addresses.

Real World Impact:

Prevents unions from obtaining federal employees' home addresses from agencies without consent.
Affirms agencies may cite the Privacy Act to refuse address disclosures.
Leaves possibility for Congress to change the rule by statute.

Topics: employee privacy, public sector unions, FOIA privacy exemptions, Privacy Act, collective bargaining

Summary

Background

Two local unions asked their federal employers for lists with employees' names and home addresses so the unions could communicate with bargaining unit members. The agencies supplied names and work stations but withheld home addresses. The unions filed charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which ordered disclosure. A Court of Appeals enforced that order, and the employers appealed to this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether giving home addresses to a union would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion" of privacy under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Privacy Act bars disclosure of personal records unless another law — here FOIA — requires it. The Court applied its Reporters Committee rule that the only public interest counted in the FOIA balance is whether disclosure would shed light on government operations. Because releasing addresses would not meaningfully inform the public about agency conduct, the Court held employees' privacy outweighed that limited public interest.

Real world impact

As a result, federal agencies need not hand over employees' home addresses to union representatives when the Privacy Act blocks release. Many public-sector unions therefore cannot obtain home contact lists from agencies without employee consent. The opinion does not decide other Privacy Act exceptions and notes Congress could change the rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices wrote separately: one stressed the decision's limited scope, and another agreed with the outcome but warned Congress probably did not intend to deny public-sector unions information available to private-sector unions and suggested Congress could address the disparity.