Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services
2016 Minn. LEXIS 491
| Minn. | 2016Background
- Dr. Michael Harlow, a board-certified psychiatrist at Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH), was terminated after an internal employment investigation following a November 15, 2011 patient incident involving restraints/seclusion.
- DHS Licensing opened a separate maltreatment investigation that initially found maltreatment "substantiated" as to Harlow, later changed to "inconclusive."
- Deputy Commissioner Anne Barry and MSH administrator David Proffitt made public statements to Minnesota Public Radio and Proffitt sent an internal email describing reasons for Harlow’s separation.
- Harlow sued for violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) and defamation based on those statements.
- District court denied summary judgment; court of appeals reversed, holding (1) employment investigation data reclassified as public under Minn. Stat. §13.43 is public despite concurrent confidential licensing data under §13.46, and (2) Barry and Proffitt had absolute privilege; this court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harlow) | Defendant's Argument (Barry/Proffitt/DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSH employment‑investigation personnel data relied on by respondents violated the MGDPA when disclosed | Harlow: personnel/investigation report was private personnel data and disclosure violated MGDPA | Respondents: report became public upon final disposition of disciplinary action under Minn. Stat. §13.43(2)(a)(5) | Court: employment investigation report was reclassified public on termination date; disclosure did not violate MGDPA |
| Whether data that is public for personnel purposes under §13.43 but confidential in a concurrent DHS maltreatment investigation under §13.46 remains confidential when disclosed | Harlow: the licensing/maltreatment confidentiality should prevent disclosure even if duplicative personnel data is public | Respondents: no statutory rule preventing same facts being public under one classification and confidential under another; §13.43 public reclassification controls for personnel data | Court: overlapping classifications can coexist; personnel data reclassified public remains public despite duplicative confidential maltreatment data |
| Whether respondents actually relied on confidential maltreatment report in making statements (triable fact for MGDPA claim) | Harlow: statements reflected confidential licensing report details, creating factual dispute | Respondents: testimony shows Barry/Proffitt did not rely on licensing report; statements may be personal impressions (not government data) | Court: no credible evidence respondents relied on confidential licensing report; summary judgment for defendants on MGDPA claim affirmed |
| Whether Barry and Proffitt are protected by absolute privilege from defamation liability | Harlow: facts are disputed about officials’ rank/scope; absolute privilege shouldn't extend to deputy or hospital administrator here | Respondents: absolute privilege (or at least qualified) shields their statements | Court: Barry (Deputy Commissioner) is a cabinet‑equivalent official under Minn. Stat. §15.06(7) and entitled to absolute privilege for statements within her statutory authority; Proffitt (hospital administrator) is not entitled to absolute privilege and the qualified‑privilege question is remanded to court of appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959) (absolute privilege for executive officers tied to effective government functioning)
- Dirkswager v. Johnson (Johnson v. Dirkswager), 315 N.W.2d 215 (Minn. 1982) (absolute privilege for cabinet‑level state officials)
- Carradine v. State, 511 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. 1994) (limited absolute privilege for law enforcement reports; narrow extension to lower‑level officials)
- Zutz v. Nelson, 788 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2010) (limits on extending absolute privilege; focus on public accountability)
- Minke v. City of Minneapolis, 845 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. 2014) (de novo review of absolute privilege; analysis for lower‑level officials)
- Matthis v. Kennedy, 67 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 1954) (distinction between absolute and qualified privilege in defamation)
- Peterson v. Steenerson, 129 N.W. 147 (Minn. 1910) (early reluctance to extend absolute privilege beyond top executive officers)