191 A.3d 75
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Requester (The Express Times) sought a school-bus surveillance video allegedly showing teacher Aaron Dufour roughly disciplining a student and asked about Dufour’s employment status and salary.
- Easton Area School District denied the video request, claiming disclosure would violate FERPA (Privacy Act) and thus risk federal funding, and alternatively asserting employee-discipline and arbitration-evidence exemptions under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
- The Office of Open Records (OOR) partially granted the appeal, concluding the video was not an “education record” under the Privacy Act; OOR did not rule on the RTKL employee-discipline exemption.
- At trial, the court affirmed OOR: it found the video related to the teacher’s conduct (not students’ academic records), so FERPA did not bar disclosure, and no final disciplinary action had occurred to trigger the RTKL personnel-discipline exemption.
- The School District appealed to this Court, advancing three issues: loss-of-federal-funding (FERPA), RTKL employee-discipline exemption, and RTKL arbitration-evidence exemption.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: FERPA did not apply because the video was directly related to the teacher (not students); the RTKL personnel-discipline exemption did not apply because the video was not shown to be in the personnel file or reflecting a final disciplinary action; the arbitration-evidence argument was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure is exempt under RTKL §708(b)(1)(i) (loss of federal funds via FERPA) | Video is not an education record; disclosure allowed | FERPA bars disclosure without parental consent because video contains identifiable students and would risk federal funding | Held: FERPA does not apply—the video is directly related to the teacher’s conduct, not students’ education records; disclosure does not risk funding |
| Whether RTKL §708(b)(7)(viii) (personnel records re: discipline/demotion/discharge) exempts the video | Video is not personnel-discipline information | Video was admitted in disciplinary proceeding and thus concerns discipline of Dufour | Held: Not exempt—School District failed to show the video is in the personnel file or that final disciplinary action had occurred |
| Whether RTKL §708(b)(8)(ii) (evidence in arbitration) exempts the video | Not raised below | Video was evidence in arbitration so should be exempt | Held: Waived—School District raised arbitration-evidence argument for first time on appeal |
| Burden and scope of RTKL exemptions (construction and proof) | — | Exemptions should apply as claimed | Held: Agency bears preponderance burden; exemptions construed narrowly; School District did not meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Owasso Independent School Dist. No. I-011 v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (U.S. 2002) (FERPA prohibits release of education records without parental consent when disclosure risks loss of federal funds)
- Bryner v. Canyons School Dist., 351 P.3d 852 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (surveillance video of student altercation held to be education records for involved students)
- Ellis v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (FERPA does not protect records directly related to teachers and only tangentially related to students)
- United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002) (discussion of what constitutes ‘‘education records’’ and identification in records)
- Rome City Sch. Dist. Disciplinary Hearing v. Grifasi, 806 N.Y.S.2d 381 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005) (video recorded for security not an education record tied to academic performance)