287 A.3d 491
Pa. Commw. Ct.2022Background
- Requester Samantha Melamed/The Philadelphia Inquirer submitted a RTKL request on July 6, 2020 seeking records of police personnel dismissed in 2020 (name, rank, effective date). PPD failed to timely respond; the request was deemed denied.
- PPD asserted it had no "final actions" of discharge in 2020 because officer dismissal notices were subject to mandatory grievance/arbitration under Act 111 and thus not final while arbitration was possible or pending.
- PPD submitted affidavits explaining the CBA/Act 111 grievance/arbitration process and that arbitrators can reinstate officers and order expungement of dismissal records.
- The OOR found PPD had met its burden showing no final discharges existed as of the request date but instructed PPD to produce records for dismissals that became final during the requested timeframe.
- The trial court affirmed the OOR, reasoning that under Act 111 the arbitrator — not PPD — is the decision-maker rendering the final action when arbitration occurs; the Commonwealth Court likewise affirmed, holding dismissals pending mandatory Act 111 arbitration are not final actions subject to disclosure until arbitration concludes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 708(b)(7)(viii) of the RTKL requires production of police dismissals that were pending grievance arbitration in 2020 | Melamed: plain text makes final agency discharges public; PPD may not withhold records simply because dismissals are contested; public interest favors disclosure | PPD: a dismissal is not a final agency action while a mandatory Act 111 grievance/arbitration may reverse the discharge; therefore exempt under Section 708(b)(7)(viii) | Court: Affirmed trial court — dismissals subject to Act 111 arbitration are not "final actions" and need not be produced until after arbitration (or if no grievance is filed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Silver v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 58 A.3d 125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (defined "final action" as the last element in a series; held municipal termination was the final action in that context)
- Office of the Attorney General v. Council 13, 844 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 2004) (arbitrator has authority under a CBA to interpret terms like "just cause" and decide discharge disputes)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 203 A.3d 965 (Pa. 2019) (context on Act 111 collective-bargaining rights for police and grievance/arbitration framework)
- Pa. State Police v. Pa. State Troopers' Ass'n, 656 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1995) (scope of judicial review of grievance arbitrator awards is narrow certiorari)
- Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (use of agency affidavits to describe searches and exemptions under the RTKL)
- Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia v. Bagwell, 155 A.3d 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (testimonial affidavits may suffice to support claimed RTKL exemptions)