# Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Department of the Navy

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 26, 1992 · 966 F.2d 747

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001612

## Case

- **Full name:** FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, in 90-3690 v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF the NAVY, Navy Ships Parts Control Center, and U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Fleet Material Support Office, and U.S. Department of the Navy, NAVSEA Logistics Center, and U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Publishing and Printing Service, American Federation of Government Employees, Intervenor U.S. DEPARTMENT OF the NAVY, Navy Ships Parts Control Center, and U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Fleet Material Support Office, and U.S. Department of the Navy, NAVSEA Logistics Center, and U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Publishing and Printing Service, in 90-3724 v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** May 26, 1992
- **Citations:** 966 F.2d 747; 140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2361
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Alito
- **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Cowen, Greenberg, Hutchinson, Mansmann, Nygaard, Rosenn, Roth, Scirica, Sloviter, Stapleton
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001612

## Opinion text

ALITO, Circuit Judge,
with whom STAPLETON, Circuit Judge,
joins, dissenting:
I dissent, essentially for the reasons set out in Judge Rosenn’s opinion, as well as in the decisions of the District of Columbia, First, Second, and Sixth Circuits. See FLRA v. Department of the Navy, 963 F.2d 124 (6th Cir.1992); FLRA v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 503 (2d Cir.1992); FLRA v. United States Dep’t of the Navy, 941 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1991); FLRA v. United States Dep’t of Treasury Fin. Management Service, 884 F.2d 1446 (D.C.Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1055 , 110 S.Ct. 863 , 864, 107 L.Ed.2d 947 (1990). I express no view whether the disclosures at issue would substantially further the public interest in collective bargaining or whether they are likely to produce substantial adverse effects. I do not believe that it is necessary to confront these questions in order to decide that Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6), applies in this case. It seems clear to me that all federal employees — from Cabinet officers to GSl’s — have a privacy interest of some weight in their home addresses and that there is no public interest cognizable under FOIA in the disclosure of these addresses.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001612. Public record. Not legal advice.