JESSE WOLOSKY VS. BOROUGH OF WASHINGTONÂ (L-0099-16, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4884-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jesse Wolosky submitted an OPRA request for the municipal clerk’s 2015 year-end payroll record or pay stub.
- The Borough produced the payroll document but redacted the clerk’s pension contributions, pension loan payments, and health insurance payments.
- Borough counsel explained the redactions as personnel/pension records exempt from OPRA under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 and noted consistency with GRC practice.
- Plaintiff filed suit seeking the unredacted information; the Law Division dismissed his complaint and denied relief.
- The trial judge ruled (1) pension and health-insurance deductions are not required components of a “payroll record” under the Department of Labor regulation and thus not within the statutory payroll-record exception to the personnel-records exemption, and (2) even if not statutorily exempt, Doe balancing weighs against disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pension and health-insurance deductions are part of a releasable “payroll record” under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 exception | Those deductions are part of the clerk’s payroll record and therefore must be disclosed | Deductions are personnel/pension information exempt from disclosure and are not required elements of a payroll record under the Dept. of Labor regulation | Court: Deductions are not required components of a payroll record; not covered by the statutory payroll-record exception, so exemptions apply |
| Even if not statutorily exempt, whether the Doe privacy-balancing test favors disclosure | Public interest in access outweighs individual privacy; disclosure justified | Clerk’s privacy expectation and potential harm outweigh public need; balancing disfavors disclosure | Court: Applying Doe factors, privacy interest and potential harm outweigh public need; disclosure denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Times of Trenton Publ’g Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Cmty. Dev. Corp., 183 N.J. 519 (discusses OPRA’s purpose to maximize public knowledge)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (established seven-factor privacy/access balancing test)
- Kovalcik v. Somerset Cnty. Prosecutor’s Office, 206 N.J. 581 (personnel and pension records are exempt from OPRA unless a statutory exception applies)
- Carter v. Doe, 230 N.J. 258 (OPRA exemption questions are legal issues reviewed de novo)