172 A.3d 1173
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Pennsylvanians for Union Reform (Requester) sought an unredacted property tax assessment list (the Property List) from Butler Area School District and the Superintendent’s home address under the RTKL.
- The School District denied access citing an injunction from separate PSEA litigation that stayed disclosure of public school employees’ home addresses; OOR directed redaction of employees’ home addresses from the Property List.
- The trial court vacated OOR’s redaction directive and allowed the School District to withhold the entire Property List, relying on the injunction; Requester appealed to this Court.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided PSEA III, recognizing a constitutional right to informational privacy in home addresses under Article I, Section 1, prompting this Court to seek supplemental briefing on effect of PSEA III.
- This Court held the Property List is a statutory public record and that the PSEA III privacy holding for home addresses does not automatically extend to property addresses in assessment records; it reversed the trial court and ordered disclosure of the Property List without redaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the preliminary Injunction Order from PSEA binds the School District/trial court to withhold the Property List | Injunction does not bind nonparties; it only applied to parties in PSEA | Injunction bound school districts because OOR notified districts and is a higher-court order | Injunction bound only parties; School District was not a party and trial court erred treating it as applying to the whole Property List |
| Whether the Property List (addresses) are protected by the constitutional right to informational privacy recognized in PSEA III | Addresses in the Property List are not home addresses and thus not protected; statute and precedent make assessment records public | PSEA III requires balancing before disclosure of home addresses; many Property List addresses may be home addresses so privacy applies | Addresses in the Property List are not sufficiently personal to trigger PSEA III balancing; Property List is public and must be disclosed without redaction |
| Whether OOR or trial court should have required redaction rather than withholding entire record | OOR properly ordered redaction of identifiable employee home addresses if they exist | School District said it could not feasibly redact because the list lacks employer linkage | Agency must redact protected parts when possible; vacating redaction and withholding the entire list was error |
| Burden of proof for exemption under RTKL | Requester: School District must prove exemption and that addresses are protected | School District: injunction and impossibility justify withholding | School District failed to show evidence Property List contains protected home addresses; mere speculation insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Education Ass'n v. Dep't of Community & Economic Dev., 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (recognized constitutional right to informational privacy in home addresses in RTKL context)
- Pa. State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (RTKL significantly expanded public access and redaction is required to protect exempted parts)
- Tribune-Review Publ’g Co. v. Bodack, 961 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2008) (privacy protection for personal telephone numbers under prior law)
- Penn State Univ. v. State Emps.’ Ret. Bd., 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) (analysis of privacy expectations for salary information under prior law)
- Sapp Roofing Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, 713 A.2d 627 (Pa. 1998) (previously identified personal identifiers requiring protection)
- Goppelt v. City of Phila. Revenue Dep’t, 841 A.2d 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (off-site mailing addresses for tax records are public and not necessarily home addresses)