State Employees' Retirement System v. Fultz
107 A.3d 860
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Requester sought names and home addresses (1998–2013) of retirees who returned to state service and retired again, plus beneficiaries; SERS produced 158 records but withheld many records citing RTKL exceptions.
- SERS withheld home addresses of retired law enforcement officers and judges under RTKL §708(b)(6)(i)(C); it withheld addresses of retirees at or above superannuation age and beneficiaries over 60 under the personal security exception, §708(b)(1)(ii).
- SERS submitted affidavits: Director Torta (agency affidavit) and two medical experts opining generally that cognitive decline in older persons increases vulnerability to financial exploitation.
- OOR ordered disclosure in part: upheld withholding of judges’ and officers’ home addresses but required disclosure of their names and of beneficiary information (SERS had not invoked other exceptions); found SERS’s evidence insufficient to withhold addresses of retirees over 60, except for one individual with documented threats.
- SERS petitioned for review; the Commonwealth Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings regarding ~23 individuals whose participation requests the OOR denied.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (SERS) Argument | Respondent (Requester) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §708(b)(6)(i)(C) exempts home addresses of non-employee residents/beneficiaries at the same address as a retired law enforcement officer or judge | Exemption protects officers/judges and their household members; addresses should be withheld even if requested as resident/beneficiary address | OOR required disclosure of such resident/beneficiary addresses because the statute mentions only the officer/judge’s home address | Court: §708(b)(6)(i)(C) bars disclosure of home addresses of officers/judges and also covers individuals residing at that exempt address; OOR erred ordering disclosure of those addresses |
| Whether SERS met its burden to withhold home addresses of retirees who attained superannuation age and beneficiaries over 60 under the personal security exception (§708(b)(1)(ii)) on a class-wide basis | Class-wide withholding is appropriate: expert/statistical evidence shows age-related cognitive decline makes this class vulnerable to financial exploitation, creating substantial and demonstrable risk | Evidence is too general; SERS failed to show that disclosure of these specific addresses is reasonably likely to cause substantial and demonstrable risk for the individuals at issue | Court: SERS’s affidavits were insufficient to meet the burden for class-wide exemption here; OOR correctly ordered disclosure except for one retiree with documented threats; remand for ~23 individuals who were denied participation so they can present individualized evidence |
| Whether first names of retired law enforcement officers are exempt under the personal security exception | First names should be withheld (citing Stein) to protect officers’ security | OOR ordered disclosure of first names because SERS relied on the statutory address exemption, not personal security evidence for first names | Court: OOR did not err; SERS failed to present evidence that disclosure of first names would likely cause substantial and demonstrable risk, so first names must be disclosed |
| Whether OOR abused discretion by denying participation requests of certain retirees and then ordering disclosure for them | OOR improperly excluded potentially probative individualized evidence from those retirees, undermining its findings | OOR considered SERS’s representation sufficient; participation denial was within OOR’s authority | Court: Record lacks the participation requests, so cannot review OOR’s denials; remanded for OOR to allow those ~23 individuals to show entitlement to personal-security withholding |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. McGill, 83 A.3d 476 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (RTKL construed to maximize access; exemptions narrowly construed)
- Delaware County v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (statutory protection for home addresses of at-risk public safety officials)
- Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (redaction of troopers’ home addresses reduces risk to families/property)
- Purcell v. Governor’s Office of Administration, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (agency may use expert/statistical evidence to establish personal-security risk for very large groups)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for OOR final determinations)