Oklahoma Public Employees Ass'n v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management
2011 OK 68
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Consolidated Open Records Act appeals concern birth dates and employee IDs of state employees.
- Two requests: names and birth dates (Oklahoman) and employee identification numbers (Tulsa World).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for OPM and OSF; records of legislative staff deemed confidential.
- Issue presented: whether birth dates and IDs are subject to disclosure under 51 O.S. Supp.2005 § 24A.7(A)(2).
- Court adopts a case-by-case balancing test when disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
- Court affirms that birth dates and employee IDs constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy and are not to be released.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether birth dates are public records under 24A.7(A)(2) | OPEA argues disclosure should be permitted under exemptions. | OPM/OSF contend privacy exemption applies. | Yes; balancing test supports withholding birth dates. |
| Whether employee identification numbers are public records | Tulsa World seeks IDs, arguing they are public records. | OPM/OSF argue IDs fall within privacy exemption and risk identity theft. | Yes; IDs would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. |
| Whether a balancing test applies under 24A.7(A)(2) | Plaintiffs advocate no balancing; per se exemptions suffice. | State urges balancing due to privacy interests. | Balancing test applies on a case-by-case basis. |
| Impact of privacy interests versus public interest in openness | Public has interest in government transparency. | Privacy interests outweigh public interest for these data. | Privacy interests predominate; release is unwarranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (FOIA privacy-balance framework)
- Nichols v. Jackson, 38 P.3d 228 (2001 OK CR 35) (balancing of privacy and public access not controlling)
- Migliaccio, 917 P.2d 483 (1996 OK CIV APP 37) (open records balancing not required in some contexts (conflicts))
- City of Lawton v. Moore, 868 P.2d 690 (1993 OK 168) (Open Records Act procedural considerations; notice not required)
- Data Tree, LLC v. Meek, 109 P.3d 1226 (2005 Kan.) (privacy vs. public access in data disclosure)