Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Unions, federal employees sue DOGE and others for privacy violations, (Feb 12, 2025)
Organizations Mentioned:Office of Personnel Management
By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.
They seek to stop the alleged “unlawful, systematic, wholesale, continuous, and ongoing disclosure of Plaintiffs’ and their members’ sensitive personal data to DOGE Defendants and their agents, including to Elon Musk or to any other person.”
In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, February 11, the AFGE, along with other associations and a slew of federal employees, seek relief from a federal district court in New York to stop the alleged “unlawful, systematic, wholesale, continuous, and ongoing disclosure of Plaintiffs’ and their members’ sensitive personal data to DOGE Defendants and their agents, including to Elon Musk or to any other person.” They’ve named in their lawsuit the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management, Charles Ezell, along with OPM, U.S. DOGE, and Musk.
They allege, on information and belief, that Musk and other DOGE actors, who were not government employees at the time, demanded and received access to OPM computer networks that contained the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs’ members’ personal information, in violation of the Privacy Act.
Unvetted workers. One of the alleged DOGE agents, the complaint states, is a teenager who is “now widely known by his online identity “Big Balls” and who, according to the New York Times, was fired from cybersecurity firm Path Network in 2022 following (according to a recent firm statement) “an internal investigation into the leaking of proprietary information that coincided with his tenure.”
They also allege that “OPM Defendants gave DOGE Defendants and DOGE’s agents—many of whom are under the age of 25 and are or were until recently employees of Musk’s private companies—‘administrative’ access to OPM computer systems, without undergoing any normal, rigorous national-security vetting.”
Ongoing access. Under the Privacy Act, they allege, it is unlawful for the defendants to “hand over access to OPM’s millions of personnel records to DOGE Defendants, who lack a lawful and legitimate need for such access.” No exception covered that access, they allege, and the defendants actions granting “full, continuing, and ongoing access to OPM’s systems and files for an unspecified period means that tens of millions of federal-government employees, retirees, contractors, job applicants, and impacted family members and other third parties have no assurance that their information will receive the protection that federal law affords.”
Their lawsuit states claims for relief under the Privacy Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and for ultra vires actions.
The case is No. 1:25-cv-01237.
News: LitigationNewsTrends WhiteHouseNews AgencyNews Privacy ComputerFraudPrivacy LaborNews Labor PublicEmployees