58 A.3d 125
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Gazette sought a former Borough employee’s termination letter under RTKL; Borough produced a redacted copy.
- OOR affirmed the Borough’s redaction and granted limited access to the termination letter.
- Trial court conducted in camera review and found redacted material reflected prior disciplinary action.
- Court held the final action is the termination itself; the letter is the record of that action and prior discipline.
- Redaction of exempt prior discipline information within the termination letter is required under RTKL and related case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether final action under RTKL requires production of the entire termination letter | Gazette: entire letter must be produced | Borough: final action is the termination, not the entire letter | No; termination is the final action, letter is the record; redaction of prior discipline is proper |
| Whether Borough waived its argument that the termination letter is not the final action | Gazette: Borough raised the issue late | Borough consistently relied on final action exception | Not waived; Borough properly relied on final action exemption throughout |
Key Cases Cited
- Lutz v. City of Philadelphia, 6 A.3d 669 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (redaction required within documents that must be disclosed when exempt information appears)
- Chester Cmty. Charter Sch. v. Hardy, 38 A.3d 1079 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (standard of review and scope in RTKL appeals)
- Allegheny County Dep’t of Admin. Servs. v. A Second Chance, Inc., 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (RTKL aims to promote access and accountability)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (RTKL purpose and public access principles)
- Schenck v. Twp. of Center, Butler County, 893 A.2d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (in pari materia with Sunshine Act; defines official action/record)