Pennsylvania State Ed. Assoc., Aplt v. DCED
11 MAP 2015
| Pa. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Appellants (Pennsylvania State Education Association and individual teachers) challenged disclosure of teachers’ home addresses under the Right to Know Law (RTKL).
- The Office of Open Records (OOR) had taken the position that teachers’ home addresses were disclosable unless a statutory exemption applied.
- The Commonwealth Court ordered disclosure; the case reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (concurring opinion by Justice Wecht).
- Central constitutional question: whether Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a right of privacy in home addresses independent of statutory exemptions.
- Justice Wecht’s concurrence holds that home addresses are protected by the state constitutional right to privacy and may be disclosed only when public interest outweighs the privacy invasion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article I, §1 protects privacy in home addresses against disclosure by state actors | Home addresses are constitutionally private; disclosure by employers requires balancing public interest vs privacy | No constitutional privacy rule absent statutory exemption; RTKL/RTKA control and do not protect teachers’ addresses | Article I, §1 does protect home-address privacy; disclosure permitted only if public interest outweighs privacy |
| Whether a statutory ‘‘personal security’’ exemption is required for constitutional protection | Constitutional protection exists independent of statutory language | Protection must be grounded in statute; otherwise addresses are disclosable | No statutory locus required; constitutionally protected privacy exists regardless of RTKL text |
| Whether existing statutory protections for particular groups (judges, police, minors) are rendered superfluous by constitutional rule | Constitutional rule applies broadly to all citizens including teachers | Statutory protections show legislature already balanced interests for certain groups; ruling would make those provisions redundant | Constitutional protection may overlap with statutes; redundancy does not negate constitutional right |
| Whether prior case law (Commonwealth v. Duncan) forecloses reasonable expectation of privacy in addresses | Duncan’s language overstated; does not control Article I, §1 analysis | Duncan suggested addresses may lack reasonable expectation of privacy in modern contexts | Duncan’s sweeping statement rejected as inconsistent with Article I, §1; modern public availability of addresses does not destroy constitutional privacy interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Tribune-Review Publ’g Co. v. Bodack, 961 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2008) (Article I, §1 privacy balancing framework)
- Pennsylvania State Univ. v. State Employees’ Ret. Bd., 935 A.3d 530 (Pa. 2007) (privacy protection under Article I, §1 applies to personal information)
- Sapp Roofing Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 12, 713 A.2d 627 (Pa. 1998) (recognition of privacy interests under state constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (addressed in concurrence; criticized for broad language on expectation of privacy)
- Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (federal recognition that public availability elsewhere does not eliminate privacy interest)
- Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1994) (individuals retain interest in controlling dissemination despite public availability)