Federal Employees’ Lawsuit Reinstated for Data Breach of Personal Information
WASHINGTON – Federal employees will get their day in court after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that their lawsuit over an Office of Personnel Management data breach can be reinstated.
A trial court dismissed the lawsuit accusing OPM of negligence for allowing hackers in 2014 to breach the agency’s computer network, exposing sensitive information of 21.5 million people. The hack was believed to have been espionage by China.
The hacked information included Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and fingerprint records of employees and applicants to the federal government. OPM is the government’s main human resources agency.
A court in 2017 consolidated the ensuing lawsuits into two claims by the National Treasury Employees Union and the American Federation of Government Employees, who claim violations of the Privacy Act and the constitutional rights of their members.
A federal district court judge in Washington then said the labor unions lacked standing to sue and could not overcome the government’s immunity from liability.
However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying the evidence already showed some of the plaintiffs were subjected to fraud because of the data breach. It included identity theft, such as credit cards being opened and fraudulent tax returns in the victims’ names, according to the lawsuit.
Other victims are at a higher risk of identity theft, meaning they have enough of an injury to prove they have a good reason for a lawsuit, the appellate court ruled.
“There is no question that the OPM hackers … now have in their possession all the information needed to steal [plaintiffs’] identities,” the court’s ruling says. “It hardly takes a criminal mastermind to imagine how such information could be used to commit identity theft.”
The “plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a substantial risk of future identity theft that is fairly traceable to OPM’s … cybersecurity failings and likely redressable, at least in part, by damages,” the appellate court’s ruling says.
The appeals court added that the district court erred by finding the Privacy Act gives the government immunity from lawsuits despite the fact OPM was warned about data breaches before the 2014 attack.
Part of the evidence for negligence was based on past OPM inspector general reports that found failings in the agency’s computer security. The court said security remains lax.
“The complaint’s plausible allegations that OPM decided to continue operating in the face of those repeated and forceful warnings, without implementing even the basic steps needed to minimize the risk of a significant data breach, is precisely the type of willful failure to establish appropriate safeguards that makes out a claim under the Privacy Act,” the ruling says.
Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit was KeyPoint Government Solutions, a contractor that assisted with background checks and security clearance investigations on government employees and applicants.
The contractor had access to OPM’s computer databases. The hackers used KeyPoint’s credentials to breach the databases.
The appeals court also criticized the lower court for relying on information from Defense Department officials who speculated the Chinese government sponsored the computer breach.
The lower court reasoned that foreign government espionage was not likely to create a risk of identity thieves stealing money through bogus tax returns or credit card purchases.
The appellate court again disagreed, writing, “As an initial matter, the district court should not have relied, even in part, on its own surmise that the Chinese government perpetrated these attacks.”
The case is AFGE, NTEU v. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. Ct. App. for D.C., No. 17-5217, June 21, 2019.
In The News
WASHINGTON — Two coaches from the Washington Nationals baseball team are adding to the lawsuits spun off from mandates by... Read More
WASHINGTON — Two coaches from the Washington Nationals baseball team are adding to the lawsuits spun off from mandates by the federal government and private employers requiring employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19. The federal mandate announced by President Joe Biden last fall takes effect next... Read More
PHOENIX — Attorneys General from 23 states signed on to an amicus brief that challenges an Arizona law prohibiting abortions... Read More
PHOENIX — Attorneys General from 23 states signed on to an amicus brief that challenges an Arizona law prohibiting abortions sought because of fetal abnormalities. The coalition contends in their brief that the preservation of women’s reproductive autonomy can and should occur while simultaneously dismissing discriminatory... Read More
NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump sued New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday, resorting to a familiar... Read More
NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump sued New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday, resorting to a familiar but seldom successful strategy as he seeks to end a yearslong civil investigation into his business practices that he alleges is purely political. In the lawsuit, filed... Read More
FAUQUIER COUNTY, Va. — A Virginia judge ruled last week that a hospital has no authority to block a family’s... Read More
FAUQUIER COUNTY, Va. — A Virginia judge ruled last week that a hospital has no authority to block a family’s choice to be treated for COVID-19 with the controversial drug ivermectin. The drug is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19. The... Read More
NEW YORK — New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has subpoenaed former president Donald J. Trump to appear in a... Read More
NEW YORK — New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has subpoenaed former president Donald J. Trump to appear in a deposition next month to answer allegations regarding the Trump organization’s involvement in improperly valuing real estate assets. The request falls on top of a mountainous pile... Read More
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that abortion rights activists can continue their challenge to Texas’ controversial "heartbeat”... Read More
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that abortion rights activists can continue their challenge to Texas’ controversial "heartbeat” abortion law, but only against some of the originally named defendants. To the disappointment of abortion rights advocates, however, the justice declined to reverse a Sept.... Read More