## Facts

- John Pippinger worked as an IRS branch manager and supervised Lynn Boak in the Cheyenne, Wyoming office.
- Pippinger and Boak, both married to others, began an extramarital relationship in late 1992.
- Anonymous hotline complaints alleged the affair, preferential treatment, and unjustified joint travel on official business.
- The IRS investigated and suspended Pippinger for two days without pay based on the relationship with a subordinate.
- Pippinger’s supervisor, Patrick Schluck, was later disciplined for a similar relationship with a subordinate and was demoted; Schluck appealed his demotion.
- In the course of Schluck’s appeal proceedings, the IRS shared information from Pippinger’s disciplinary matter with Schluck, Schluck’s attorneys, and a court reporter.
- Pippinger alleged that both the litigation-related sharing and broader internal awareness within the district of the reasons for his suspension violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

## Issues

1. Whether the IRS unlawfully “disclosed” protected information by providing material from Pippinger’s disciplinary records to Schluck, Schluck’s counsel, and a court reporter during Schluck’s appeal proceedings.
2. Whether internal dissemination within the IRS district—resulting in widespread knowledge of the reason for Pippinger’s suspension—constituted a prohibited disclosure under the Privacy Act.
3. Whether the challenged communications involved information drawn from a “record” within a “system of records,” as required for Privacy Act liability.
4. Whether Pippinger produced sufficient evidence of an “intentional or willful” violation and actual damages to recover money damages under § 552a(g).

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Secretary of the Treasury.
- The court held that Pippinger failed to establish an actionable Privacy Act violation based on the challenged communications.
- The court concluded that many communications reflected participants’ independent knowledge or recollection rather than disclosure of information from protected records.
- To the extent records were used or shared in connection with Schluck’s disciplinary appeal, the court found the disclosures fell within statutory exceptions, including intra-agency “need to know,” because the information was relevant to agency personnel litigation.
- The court further held that Pippinger did not show the level of willfulness required for damages or prove actual compensable damages.

## Legal Principles

- The Privacy Act generally prohibits disclosure of any “record” contained in a “system of records” without the subject’s prior written consent, unless a statutory exception applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b).
- Liability depends on disclosure of information from protected records, not merely disclosure of information about an individual; disclosures based on memory or independent knowledge do not, by themselves, establish a prohibited disclosure of a record.
- Intra-agency disclosures are permitted when made to officers or employees with a “need for the record” in the performance of their duties. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(1).
- Money damages under § 552a(g) require proof of an “intentional or willful” violation and actual damages; negligence, embarrassment, or speculative reputational harm is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because Pippinger did not show that the IRS made an unauthorized disclosure of protected records outside the Privacy Act’s exceptions, and in any event he failed to prove willful misconduct and actual damages required for monetary relief.


Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519 (10th Cir. 1997)