Delaware County v. Schaefer Ex Rel. Philadelphia Inquirer
45 A.3d 1149
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Schaefer, on behalf of The Philadelphia Inquirer, sought home addresses and birth dates for all Delaware County employees as part of a May 6, 2009 RTKL request for payroll data.
- The County provided names, titles and salaries digitally but denied birth dates and home addresses as not records or as exempt under RTKL exemptions.
- The Office of Open Records (OOR) ordered disclosure of addresses and birth dates on October 21, 2010.
- The County reversed the OOR decision in a January 26, 2011 trial court order, concluding the requested information was exempt under RTKL and applying a balancing approach.
- Schaefer appealed, raising three issues: statutory/textual interpretation of RTKL exemptions, potential constitutional/public policy divergence, and whether the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte reversing the OOR without notice.
- The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court clarified the RTKL framework, held that birth dates are exempt under the Personal Harm/Personal Security Exception (relying on Purcell), remanded the home addresses issue for further record development, and affirmed the exemption for birth dates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Personal Identification Exception (708(b)(6)) applies to shield home addresses and birth dates | Schaefer argues these items are not categorically exempt | County argues they fall within 708(b)(6) | Not categorically exempt; exemptions are context-specific and other RTKL provisions may apply |
| Meaning of Personal Harm/Personal Security Exception including non-physical risks | Schaefer contends only physical harm is protected | RTKL protects risks to personal security beyond physical harm | Court adopts broader interpretation; includes risk to personal security as contemplated by RTKL |
| Whether birth dates of county employees must be disclosed | Full birth dates should be disclosed for identification | Birth dates are protected by Personal Security Exception | Birth dates are exempt under Personal Harm/Personal Security Exception and need not be disclosed |
| Procedural adequacy for home addresses determination | Record supported disclosure; no need for remand | Need evidentiary record to assess risk to personal security | Remanded for development of the record to determine if disclosure would risk personal security |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell, Governor's Office of Administration v. Dylan Purcell, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (expanded scope of personal security; birth dates exempt from disclosure)
- Times Publ’g Co. v. Michel, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 398, 633 A.2d 1233 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (personal security includes privacy and potential harm risks)
- Hartman v. Dept. of Conservation, 892 A.2d 897 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (privacy considerations in RTKL context)
- Allegheny County Dept. of Administrative Services v. Parsons, 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (remand to develop record on personal security exemption)
- Tribune-Review Publ’g Co. v. Hazleton Area School District, 708 A.2d 866 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998) (privacy/right to information under RTKL)
- Pennsylvania State Education Association v. Commonwealth Dept. of Community & Economic Development, 4 A.3d 1156 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL revisions; presumption records are public unless exempt)