19-3149 Lowman v. NVI LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 22nd day of July, two thousand twenty. 4 5 PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 ROBERT LOWMAN, JR., 11 12 Plaintiff-Appellant, 13 14 v. No. 19-3149 15 16 NVI LLC, 17 18 Defendant-Appellee. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 21 22 1 FOR PLAINTIFF- 2 APPELLANT: Robert Lowman Jr., pro se, 3 Lawtons, NY. 4 5 FOR DEFENDANT- 6 APPELLEE: Riane Lafferty, James J. 7 Rooney, Bond, Schoeneck & 8 King, PLLC, Buffalo, NY. 9 10 11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 12 Western District of New York (Lawrence J. Vilardo, Judge). 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 14 AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 15 Robert Lowman, Jr. appeals from a September 4, 2019 judgment of the 16 United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Vilardo, J.) 17 dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim under the Privacy Act, 5 18 U.S.C. § 552, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. 19 seq. Lowman alleged that the defendant, NVI LLC, violated his rights under 20 both statutes by refusing to hire him after he declined to provide NVI with his 21 Social Security Number (SSN). Lowman also challenges the District Court’s 22 denial of his request to amend his complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity 2 1 with the underlying facts and prior record of proceedings, to which we refer only 2 as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 3 The Privacy Act provides that it is “unlawful for any Federal, State or local 4 government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege 5 provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social 6 security account number.” Federal Privacy Act, § 7(a), Pub. L. No. 93-579, 88 7 Stat. 1896, 1909 (contained as amended in 5 U.S.C. § 552a (note)). On appeal, 8 Lowman argues that NVI is a “government agency” covered by the Privacy Act 9 because it collects taxes on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals