202 A.3d 890
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- On October 19, 2016 Simon Campbell requested from the Governor’s Office of Administration (OA) an electronic extract of Commonwealth employees’ names, job titles, dates of birth, and counties of residence.
- OA provided publicly posted names and job information via PennWatch but denied dates of birth and counties of residence, citing confidentiality concerns.
- Requester appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR); OOR denied disclosure of dates of birth but ordered OA to disclose counties of residence without conducting a constitutional balancing test.
- OA appealed to the Commonwealth Court and sought a stay pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Reese v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform; the stay was later lifted.
- The Commonwealth Court held that counties of residence are protected by the constitutional right to informational privacy and performed the PSEA balancing test itself, finding no public interest to outweigh privacy.
- The court reversed OOR’s directive to disclose counties of residence and affirmed OOR’s denial as to dates of birth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county of residence is protected by the constitutional right to informational privacy | Requester: county of residence is not protected and must be disclosed under RTKL | OA: counties of residence implicate informational privacy and require a PSEA balancing test before disclosure | County of residence is protected; disclosure requires PSEA balancing and privacy outweighed public interest here (no disclosure) |
| Whether OOR was required to perform a constitutional balancing test before ordering disclosure | Requester: OOR need not apply the PSEA balancing test to county information | OA: OOR erred by ordering disclosure without performing the PSEA/Reese balancing test | OOR erred; must apply PSEA/Reese balancing before ordering disclosure |
| Whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs employee privacy for county data | Requester: asserted public interest but refused to articulate it in the record | OA: no sufficient public interest connected to employees’ official duties to override privacy | No cognizable public benefit was shown; privacy outweighs disclosure interest |
| Proper standard of review when constitutional informational-privacy right is implicated | Requester: matter governed by RTKL framework | OA: once constitutional privacy is triggered, courts apply constitutional balancing (PSEA/Reese) rather than only RTKL | Constitutional balancing governs; if privacy is outweighed then RTKL may apply — here constitutional test controlled and favored nondisclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Reese v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 173 A.3d 1143 (Pa. 2017) (requiring PSEA constitutional balancing for disclosure of employee home-address-related data)
- Pennsylvania State Education Ass'n v. Dep't of Cmty. & Econ. Dev., 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (articulates informational-privacy right and balancing test applicable before releasing personal information)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 223 A.2d 102 (Pa. 1966) (discusses privacy as a component of pursuit of happiness under Article I, Section 1)
- Governor's Office of Administration v. Purcell, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (RTKL’s purpose: promote access to government information and accountability)