154 A.3d 431
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Executive Order required DHS to compile a monthly list of names and home addresses of Direct Care Workers (DCWs) paid through participant-directed Home Care Service Programs.
- DHS had PPL generate a spreadsheet (the DCW List) with ~20,000 DCWs’ names and home addresses and provided it to a union; DHS retained the list and related data.
- PFUR submitted an RTKL request seeking the names and addresses of all DCWs; DHS denied release of addresses under RTKL § 708(b)(28)(ii)(B) (information "relating to" identity of a caregiver).
- DHS submitted affidavits showing searches of sample addresses on WhitePages/other sites often produced names; OOR rejected DHS’s claim, relying on Van Osdol that addresses alone do not necessarily identify social‑service recipients or caregivers.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed OOR insofar as § 708(b)(28) did not facially exempt DCW addresses, but vacated the OOR order directing disclosure of home addresses and remanded for the PSEA III privacy balancing test (Supreme Court held home addresses implicate constitutional privacy).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCW home addresses are exempt under RTKL § 708(b)(28)(ii)(B) | Addresses are not information "identifying" applicants/recipients and thus not exempt (PFUR) | Addresses "relate to" caregiver identity and are therefore exempt (DHS) | Addresses are not facially exempt under § 708(b)(28); OOR decision rejecting exemption affirmed |
| Whether disclosure of addresses would "necessarily or so easily" lead to disclosure of protected information per Van Osdol | DHS’s sample-search affidavits are insufficient to show addresses will necessarily identify caregivers (PFUR) | Affidavits show ~60% success in identifying names from addresses, sufficient to withhold (DHS) | DHS’s affidavits did not establish that addresses would necessarily or so easily disclose caregiver identities; Van Osdol standard not met |
| Whether constitutional privacy in home addresses affects disclosure | PFUR did not contest constitutional/privacy balancing at OOR; sought addresses under RTKL | DHS urged protections; Supreme Court precedent requires balancing before releasing home addresses (DHS) | Supreme Court’s PSEA III requires balancing of privacy vs public benefit; remand ordered for OOR to apply that test before disclosure |
| Remedy/procedure on remand | PFUR wanted immediate production per OOR order | DHS sought judicial deference to withhold; some judges urged reversal without remand | Court affirmed rejection of statutory exemption, vacated the directive to produce addresses, and remanded to OOR for PSEA III balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh v. Van Osdol, 40 A.3d 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (addresses alone do not necessarily identify social‑service recipients; burden to show disclosure is tantamount to disclosing protected information)
- The Pennsylvania State Education Association v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (constitutional privacy interest in home addresses requires balancing public benefit against privacy before disclosure)
- Markham v. Wolf, 147 A.3d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (executive order provisions requiring DHS to compile DCW list found invalid/void)
- Commonwealth, Department of Labor & Industry v. Simpson, 151 A.3d 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (discussing scope of § 708(b)(28)(ii)(B) and distinguishing Van Osdol)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (RTKL exemptions are to be narrowly construed)