50430-8
Wash. Ct. App.Oct 30, 2018Background
- In Nov. 2016 the Seattle Times submitted a Public Records Act (PRA) request to DSHS for a list of current individual home care providers and their dates of birth. The request was made after voters approved Initiative 1501 (I-1501) but before its Dec. 8 effective date.
- I-1501 added a PRA exemption for sensitive personal information of seniors and individual providers (codified at RCW 42.56.640(1)) and separately barred state agencies from releasing such information (RCW 43.17.410(1)).
- Appellants (PSARA, SEIU 775, and three care recipients) obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing DSHS from releasing the records and then sought a permanent injunction.
- The trial court denied the permanent injunction, holding I-1501 did not apply retroactively and that disclosure was not prohibited under the law in effect when the request was made.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution (privacy) protects individual providers’ names paired with birthdates from PRA disclosure, and (2) RCW 43.17.410(1) prohibits DSHS from releasing such records at any time after I-1501’s effective date regardless of when the PRA request was submitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article I, §7 protects individual providers’ names with birthdates from PRA disclosure | Disclosure intrudes on privacy and risks identity theft; WPEA supports protection | DSHS (and implicit counterargument) argued records are public under PRA absent exemption | Court held article I, §7 protects names paired with birthdates from disclosure under WPEA reasoning |
| Whether RCW 43.17.410(1) applies to bar disclosure when the PRA request predated the statute’s effective date | Even if not retroactive, the statute operates prospectively to bar release after its effective date regardless of request date | DSHS argued I-1501 (or its provisions) should not apply to requests made before the effective date (trial court found no retroactivity) | Court held RCW 43.17.410(1) prohibits releasing the information at any time after the statute’s effective date; applicability is prospective because the triggering event is the agency’s release obligation |
| Whether appellants met PRA injunction standards to obtain a permanent injunction | Appellants argued irreparable and substantial harm and that records are exempt | DSHS relied on trial court finding and PRA disclosure obligation | Court reversed denial of permanent injunction motion and remanded for the trial court to determine whether a permanent injunction is appropriate in light of holdings |
| Whether the Court should resolve vested-rights/retroactivity objections | Appellants raised vested-rights issues but DSHS did not press a vested-right defense | DSHS did not argue vested rights; trial court resolved on retroactivity | Court declined to decide vested-right exception because DSHS did not argue it and resolution unnecessary to holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Wash. Pub. Emps. Ass’n, UFCW Local 365 v. Wash. St. Ctr. for Childhood Deafness & Hr’g Loss, 1 Wn. App. 2d 225, 404 P.3d 111 (2017) (state employees’ names with birthdates are protected by article I, §7)
- Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Loc. 925 v. Freedom Found., 197 Wn. App. 203, 389 P.3d 641 (2016) (two-part article I, §7 inquiry for privacy—unreasonable intrusion and authority of law justification)
- Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 190 Wn.2d 769, 418 P.3d 102 (2018) (framework for PRA injunction analysis; two-step inquiry and burdens)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Flint, 174 Wn.2d 539, 277 P.3d 657 (2012) (definition of prospective application and vested-rights retroactivity test)
- SEIU 775 v. Dep’t of Social & Health Servs., 198 Wn. App. 745, 396 P.3d 369 (2017) (PRA’s disclosure mandate and sources of exemptions)