PSEA v. DCED Cross Appeal of: OOR
22 MAP 2015
| Pa. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) and member public school employees sued the Office of Open Records (OOR) and related defendants to prevent disclosure of employees’ home addresses under the Right to Know Law (RTKL).
- PSEA argued home addresses are protected by the constitutional right to informational privacy and by the RTKL’s “personal security” exemption; sought injunctions and declaratory relief.
- Commonwealth Court initially granted a preliminary injunction, later dismissed for improper defendant naming, and on remand the en banc Commonwealth Court granted summary judgment to OOR on privacy claims but ruled RTKL procedure deficient and ordered notice/participation protections for affected employees.
- PSEA and OOR both appealed; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania consolidated appeals to decide whether constitutional privacy and the RTKL’s personal security exemption protect home addresses and whether the Commonwealth Court’s procedural remedy exceeded authority.
- The Supreme Court held that Article I, §1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protects informational privacy (including home addresses) such that disclosure requires a balancing of privacy versus public interest under the RTKL’s personal security framework; it reversed the Commonwealth Court’s grant of summary judgment for OOR and its procedural-order remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether home addresses of public school employees are protected by constitutional informational privacy and RTKL personal security exemption | Home addresses implicate Article I, §1 informational privacy; RTKL’s “personal security” language should be interpreted consistently with prior RTKA case law requiring a privacy/public-interest balancing test | OOR: prior privacy protections rested on old RTKA statutory language; RTKL’s revised “personal security” text requires a showing of substantial demonstrable risk of physical harm, not a broad privacy balancing; no constitutional privacy in addresses per Duncan | Held: Home addresses implicate Article I, §1 informational privacy; courts must balance privacy against public interest before disclosure; prior trilogy (Sapp Roofing, Penn State, Bodack) remains controlling under RTKL. |
| Whether Commonwealth Court correctly held no constitutional privacy in home addresses based on Commonwealth v. Duncan | PSEA: Duncan addressed Article I, §8 (search/seizure), not broader Article I, §1 informational privacy; Duncan is inapposite | OOR: Duncan shows no reasonable expectation of privacy in names/addresses today; it undermines any constitutional protection | Held: Duncan is distinguishable; it applied Article I, §8 in criminal context and does not negate Article I, §1 informational privacy recognized in later cases. |
| Whether RTKL’s personal security exemption was intended to eliminate prior balancing approach | PSEA: under statutory construction, repeating “personal security” language preserves judicially developed balancing test from RTKA-era cases | OOR: changed RTKL language altered scope and requires a demanding risk showing | Held: Legislature’s reuse of “personal security” language and presumption of consistency with prior judicial constructions means balancing remains required; constitutional protections must be respected. |
| Whether Commonwealth Court exceeded authority by imposing mandatory notice/participation procedures on school districts | PSEA: procedural due process is inadequate under RTKL as implemented and OOR has failed to promulgate regulations; Court should remedy systemic defects | OOR: Commonwealth Court lacked authority to impose new procedural regime not in RTKL | Held: Cross-appeal is moot because Court’s substantive ruling protects addresses; Court emphasized OOR’s failure to adopt adequate notice procedures but did not adopt Commonwealth Court’s specific 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) (recognized need to balance privacy interests against public benefit for disclosure of personal information)
- Pa. State Univ. v. State Employees' Retirement Bd., 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) (approved balancing test where informational privacy implicated; distinguished salary information)
- Tribune-Review Publ. Co. v. Bodack, 961 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2008) (applied balancing test; treated home addresses and phone numbers as strongly private)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (addressed expectation of privacy in name/address under Article I, §8 in criminal context)
- Times Publ'g Co. v. Michel, 633 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (early Commonwealth Court articulation that personal-security exception accommodates constitutional privacy via balancing)
- Denoncourt v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Comm'n, 470 A.2d 945 (Pa. 1983) (plurality) (recognized constitutional informational privacy under Article I, §1 and endorsed balancing of privacy against state interests)