Governor's Office of Administration v. Purcell
35 A.3d 811
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Requester sought all active state employees and fields including birth dates and other data.
- GOA granted partial disclosure and redacted birth dates (month/day) citing the personal security exception.
- OOR reviewed and determined birth dates are not exempt, directing full dates disclosure fails to meet exemption.
- GOA offered documents from experts on identity theft and privacy to support redaction.
- OOR relied on prior decisions and did not find that current RTKL privacy rights support disclosure of birth dates.
- Court held that under the current RTKL, the personal security exception applies to protect month and day of birth for about 70,000 employees, reversing the OOR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether birth dates fall within the personal security exception | Purcell argues no general privacy protection exists for birth dates under current RTKL. | GOA contends birth dates are within the personal security exception and should be redacted. | Yes; birth months/days are protected under the personal security exception. |
| Whether the current RTKL contains a privacy balancing requirement for birth dates | Requester argues no balancing test exists under the current RTKL and cites the lack of explicit birth-date exemption. | GOA argues the plain language and legislative history support a privacy-based balancing under the current RTKL. | There is no general privacy balancing embedded for all birth dates; the plain-language exception applies. |
| What standard of evidence supports application of the personal security exception | Requester asserts the exception requires only conjecture and that there is no threat shown. | GOA presents expert affidavits and statistics showing substantial and demonstrable risk to personal security. | Credible expert opinions and statistics establish a substantial and demonstrable risk; the exception applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tribune-Review Publishing Co. v. Bodack, 599 Pa. 256, 961 A.2d 110 (2008) (privacy as a component of RTKL prior framework)
- Pa. State Univ. v. State Employees’ Ret. Bd., 594 Pa. 244, 935 A.2d 530 (2007) (privacy considerations under former RTKL)
- Allegheny County Department of Administrative Services v. A Second Chance, Inc., 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (constitutional privacy rights and RTKL access interplay)
- Lutz v. City of Philadelphia, 6 A.3d 669 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (interpretation of personal security/identity threats in RTKL context)
- Pa. State Educ. Ass’n v. Dept. of Community & Economic Development, 981 A.2d 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (privacy considerations and RTKL balancing approach)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (trial-court style de novo review under RTKL)