Pennsylvania State Ed. Assoc., Aplt v. DCED
11 MAP 2015
| Pa. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- PSEA challenged disclosure of public-school–employee home addresses under RTKL and the OOR, seeking to enjoin release and to declare home addresses exempt.
- RTKL retains a personal security/privacy exception, requiring a case-by-case balancing of privacy interests against public disclosure benefits.
- This line of cases evolved from RTKA, where this Court recognized constitutional privacy rights and applied balancing (Sapp Roofing; Penn State; Bodack).
- Commonwealth Court had held there is no constitutional privacy right to home addresses under RTKL and fashioned procedural remedies, leading to a consolidated appeal.
- This Court overruled the Commonwealth Court on the privacy issue, reaffirming a constitutional right to informational privacy and requiring balancing under RTKL; it also noted the OOR’s procedural concerns remain moot for this dispute but criticized by noting need for uniform due process rules.
- Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether home addresses of public school employees are protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution when disclosed under RTKL | PSEA: privacy under Art. I, §1 protects home addresses; balancing favors privacy. | OOR: RTKL’s personal security balancing is statutory, not constitutional; RTKL should be applied case-by-case. | Yes; privacy protected; balancing weighs in favor of non-disclosure. |
| Whether the RTKL preserves the balancing approach used under RTKA for personal information | PSEA: same balancing applies; Sapp Roofing/Penn State/Bodack control the standard. | OOR: RTKL changed language; no blanket balancing from RTKA. | Yes; balancing preserved under RTKL and the same privacy-right framework applies. |
| Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in dismissing Counts I–III and in upholding lack of constitutional privacy under RTKL | PSEA seeks declaratory relief protecting home addresses. | OOR/Commonwealth Court: RTKL does not guarantee privacy for home addresses. | Commonwealth Court erred; reversed; privacy right recognized. |
| Whether procedural due process concerns under RTKL require ongoing notice and opportunity to be heard before disclosure | PSEA argued due process protections are lacking. | OOR contends process adequate at appeal; stage-specific limitations exist. | Moot as to the present dispute; remand not necessary to resolve due process in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sapp Roofing Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local Union No. 12, 713 A.2d 627 (Pa. 1998) (privacy rights balancing in RTKA applications; information sensitive)
- Penn State v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) (informational privacy balancing under RTKA)
- Tribune-Review Publ. Co. v. Bodack, 961 A.2d 110 (Pa. Commw. 2008) (balancing test for personal information under RTKA; privacy rights)
- Times Publishing Co. v. Michel, 633 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (balancing privacy interests against public benefit in RTKA)
- Denoncourt v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Comm’n, 470 A.2d 945 (Pa. 1983) (constitutional privacy rights require balancing against government interests)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (privacy in name/address context; Article I, §8 analysis; not controlling for informational privacy under Art. I, §1)
- Mohn v. Office of Open Records, 67 A.3d 123 (Pa. Commw. 2013) (RTKL privacy interpretation; en banc decisions scrutinized)
- Office of Open Records v. Raffle, 65 A.3d 1105 (Pa. Commw. 2013) (RTKL privacy interpretation; en banc decisions scrutinized)