Pennsylvania State EduCation Ass'n ex rel. Wilson v. Commonwealth, Department of Community & Economic Development
148 A.3d 142
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) and member public school employees sued the Office of Open Records (OOR) seeking to prevent disclosure of employees’ home addresses under the Right to Know Law (RTKL).
- Commonwealth Court initially entered a preliminary injunction; this Court affirmed the injunction pending final disposition, then vacated and remanded on jurisdictional and procedural grounds in PSEA I.
- On remand PSEA amended to add due-process claims challenging RTKL procedures that provide no notice or party status to affected third parties when records requests seek personal information.
- The Commonwealth Court (en banc) later held that neither the RTKL nor the Pennsylvania Constitution protects school employees’ home addresses, but that RTKL procedures must require notice and opportunity to object; both PSEA and OOR appealed.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court’s holding that no constitutional privacy interest exists in home addresses, ruled that Article I, §1 protects informational privacy (including home addresses) and requires a balancing test, and remanded; the Court deemed OOR’s cross-appeal moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether home addresses of public school employees are protected from disclosure under the RTKL personal security exception | PSEA: RTKL’s “personal security” language must be interpreted to preserve the constitutional informational-privacy balancing test established under prior caselaw; home addresses warrant protection | OOR: RTKL’s revised language requires a showing of substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm; prior RTKA-based balancing does not survive the RTKL | Held: Article I, §1 protects informational privacy including home addresses; disclosure requires a balancing test and generic requests for large-scale addresses are outweighed by privacy interests |
| Whether prior decisions (Sapp Roofing, Penn State, Bodack) remain valid under RTKL | PSEA: Prior cases recognized a constitutional right and balancing test that continues under RTKL | OOR: Those protections were statutory under the RTKA and were not carried into the RTKL’s new text | Held: Prior decisions remain controlling; legislature’s reuse of “personal security” language and constitutional commands preserve the balancing test |
| Whether Commonwealth v. Duncan forecloses a privacy interest in addresses | OOR: Duncan held no reasonable expectation of privacy in name/address under Article I, §8 | PSEA: Duncan addressed Article I, §8 (search/seizure) in criminal context and does not control Article I, §1 informational-privacy analysis | Held: Duncan is distinguishable and not dispositive; Article I, §1 analysis governs informational privacy claims |
| Whether the Commonwealth Court properly imposed blanket procedural protections at request stage or OOR exceeded authority | PSEA: RTKL process lacks adequate notice/party status, requiring remedial procedures | OOR: Lacks authority to regulate request-stage procedures; adequate process exists at appeals stage | Held: Issue is moot given protective ruling on addresses; Court criticized OOR for failing to promulgate adequate procedural rules and urged regulatory action, but did not adopt Commonwealth Court’s remedy here |
Key Cases Cited
- Sapp Roofing Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 12, 713 A.2d 627 (Pa. 1998) (adopted balancing approach protecting personal information such as home addresses)
- Pa. State Univ. v. State Employees’ Retirement Bd., 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) (recognized informational-privacy interests and applied balancing test)
- Tribune-Review Publ. Co. v. Bodack, 961 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2008) (applied balancing test to telephone records; identified home addresses as information implicating privacy)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (addressed expectation of privacy in name/address under Article I, §8; distinguished in this opinion)
- Times Publ’g Co. v. Michel, 633 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (early recognition of need to weigh personal security/privacy against public interest under former RTKA)