Schuman v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
2017 Ohio 5770
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Requester Andrew Schuman sought employer information and current addresses from ODJFS’s new hires database in an April 5, 2017 public-records request.
- ODJFS denied the request, citing statutory limits on disclosure in R.C. 3121.899 and related authorities. Schuman filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging wrongful denial under R.C. 149.43(B).
- Mediation failed; ODJFS moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the requested records are wholly exempt from disclosure.
- The Special Master treated the merits under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard applicable to R.C. 149.43 claims (following the mandamus standard used in case law).
- The new hires directory is maintained by ODJFS under R.C. 3121.894 and contains the specific fields Schuman requested (employee address; employer name, address, ID).
- R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(o) explicitly excludes records maintained by ODJFS pursuant to section 3121.894 from the Public Records Act; the Special Master concluded this statutory exclusion bars disclosure and recommended dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schuman’s request for “information” in the new hires database constitutes a proper public-records request | Schuman: the information contained in the database is a public record and must be disclosed | ODJFS: the database output is exempt from public-records disclosure under R.C. 3121.894/3121.899 | Held: Request construed as a records request; properly targeted at the new hires directory, so it is a cognizable request |
| Whether records in the ODJFS new hires directory are "public records" under R.C. 149.43 | Schuman: although new-hire reports may not be public, the information within the database is public | ODJFS: R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(o) excludes records maintained pursuant to R.C. 3121.894 from the definition of "public record" | Held: The statute unambiguously excludes those records; they are not public records and are exempt from disclosure |
| Whether the statutory exclusion is overcome by any competing disclosure policy or common-law presumption in favor of openness | Schuman: public-records law should be liberally construed in favor of access; exceptions narrowly construed | ODJFS: the specific statutory exclusion controls and precludes disclosure despite the general presumption | Held: Specific statutory exclusion controls; ODJFS met burden to show the exception applies and dismissal is appropriate |
| Whether dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate when records are exempt | Schuman: relief available under R.C. 2743.75 if denial violated R.C. 149.43(B) | ODJFS: because records are exempt in their entirety, Schuman cannot state a claim | Held: Dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) recommended because Schuman cannot prove a violation given the statutory exemption |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Miller v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 136 Ohio St.3d 350 (mandamus standard for R.C. 149.43 violations)
- State ex rel. Morgan v. City of New Lexington, 112 Ohio St.3d 33 (information-only requests are generally improper absent an existing record)
- State ex rel. Kerner v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 273 (database output that is an existing record is subject to disclosure)
- Kish v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 162 (broad construction of "records" to include compilations and information)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio St.3d 81 (custodian bears burden to prove applicability of exceptions)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (clear-and-convincing evidence standard definition)