Luster v. Vilsack
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
667 F.3d 1089 (2011)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Anita Luster (plaintiff) worked for the United States Forest Service (Forest Service). She filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging workplace discrimination based on sex. Rosenbluth, an attorney for the Forest Service, faxed several documents that contained Luster’s name and details of her EEO claim to Crespin, a Forest Service official. The fax machine to which Rosenbluth sent the documents was accessible to numerous Forest Service employees. However, all but one of the documents included a cover letter stating that the document was privileged and confidential. There was no evidence that anyone other than Crespin received or read the documents. Additionally, Crespin only ever shared one of the documents. It was notice of the EEO hearing date, and Crespin provided it only to the two employees who were to testify at the hearing. Nevertheless, when Luster eventually sued Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Luster added a claim alleging violation of the Privacy Act to her claim alleging workplace discrimination. She argued that Rosenbluth’s transmission of the documents to a fax machine accessible to persons not authorized to view the documents violated the Privacy Act. The district court granted summary judgment in Vilsack’s favor, and Luster appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

