District of Columbia· 9/28/2005

Runkle v. Gonzales

Citations

391 F. Supp. 2d 210
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22219
2005 WL 2431265

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that although a plaintiff believed that pursuing administrative remedies “to their fullest extent would be futile, he was still required to exhaust that remedy”
concluding “there is no private right of action under HIPAA of which the plaintiff can avail himself”
noting that “scrupulous monitoring” does not constitute an adverse action because “it is part of the employer’s job to ensure that employees are safely and properly carrying out their jobs”
“whether the routine use exception the defendants raise here or whether any other Privacy Act exception applies should be decided after the parties have had an op portunity to complete discovery”
“Formal letters 24 of admonishment and disciplinary notices that have no effect on an employee’s grade or salary level, job title, duties, benefits or work hours, for example, do not constitute adverse actions.”
“The fact that the plaintiff was subject to an investigation does not amount to an adverse action because ‘mere investigations by [an] employer . . . have no adverse effect on plaintiff’s employment.’” (alterations in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Urbina

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

47 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

81 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.