PSEA v. DCED Cross Appeal of: OOR
22 MAP 2015
Pa.Oct 18, 2016Background
- Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) sought nondisclosure of member home addresses held by a state agency under the Right to Know Law (RTKL) after prior Right to Know Act (RTKA) repeal; Commonwealth Office of Open Records (OOR) opposed.
- Core dispute: whether public employees’ home addresses are protected from disclosure by a constitutionally rooted right to privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, regardless of RTKL statutory text.
- Procedural posture: appeal to Pennsylvania Supreme Court from Commonwealth Court order; concurrence by Justice Wecht addressing constitutional privacy.
- Justice Wecht’s concurrence emphasizes that constitutional privacy protections exist independently of RTKL/RTKA and cannot be diminished by statute.
- He rejects the notion that public availability of addresses defeats a constitutional privacy interest and stresses that disclosure by government actors requires a public-interest outweighing test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Penn. Constitution Article I, §1 privacy protections cover home addresses? | PSEA: Article I, §1 secures a privacy right protecting home addresses. | OOR: RTKL framework governs; no separate constitutional protection beyond statute. | Held: Yes; Article I, §1 protects personal privacy including home addresses. |
| Can statute (RTKL) abrogate constitutional privacy? | PSEA: Statute cannot diminish constitutional rights; constitutional protection stands independent of RTKL. | OOR: RTKL/RTKA personal security exemptions govern and suffice. | Held: Statutory provisions cannot erode constitutional privacy; constitutional protection controls. |
| Is prior language in Commonwealth v. Duncan dispositive that addresses lack reasonable expectation of privacy? | PSEA: Duncan’s broad language is inconsistent with Article I, §1 protections and should not control. | OOR: Duncan suggests diminished expectation because addresses are publicly disclosed elsewhere. | Held: Duncan’s phrasing is disfavored here; reasonable expectation of privacy can exist despite public availability. |
| When may government disclose home addresses of public employees? | PSEA: Only when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy invasion. | OOR: Statutory balancing (RTKL exceptions) governs disclosure analysis. | Held: Disclosure requires a public-interest outweighing test under the constitutional privacy right; ordinary availability elsewhere is not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tribune-Review Publ’g Co. v. Bodack, 961 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2008) (recognizes constitutional privacy interests and balancing test for disclosure)
- Pennsylvania State Univ. v. State Employees’ Retirement Bd., 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) (same: privacy interest and public-interest balancing)
- Sapp Roofing Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 12, 713 A.2d 627 (Pa. 1998) (privacy protections under Article I, §1 affirmed)
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 817 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2003) (search-and-seizure context; contested dicta about expectation of privacy in addresses)
- Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (federal recognition that public availability of information does not eliminate privacy interests)
- Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487 (1994) (same: control over dissemination remains a privacy interest)