State Employees' Retirement System v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform
113 A.3d 9
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- PFUR requested names and home/mailing addresses of all active, retired, and inactive vested members of SERS; SERS produced ~34,524 names/addresses but withheld categories citing RTKL exemptions (law enforcement/judges, minors, superannuated retirees, and broad personal-security concerns).
- PFUR appealed to the OOR; OOR allowed thousands of SERS members and multiple agencies/unions to participate as third parties and received ~3,851 individual objections submitted largely via a SERS-provided, unsigned form.
- OOR issued a final determination: granted disclosure in part and denied in part — rejected fiduciary- and constitutional-privacy arguments, found insufficient evidence for some exemptions (including superannuation and law-enforcement/judge addresses), upheld personal-security exemption for identified Corrections employees (CIVEA) who interact regularly with inmates, and concluded PFUR waived its request for Individual Objectors’ addresses.
- Both PFUR and SERS appealed aspects of OOR’s decision to this Court; the Court consolidated appeals and reviewed issues including waiver, procedural handling of third-party participation, and scope of personal-security and law-enforcement/judge exemptions.
- The Court: reversed OOR’s waiver finding (remanding for merits review of Individual Objectors’ submissions); affirmed exclusion for CIVEA members who work in facilities and interact with inmates; rejected SERS’s superannuation-class exemption; and held SERS may withhold home addresses of law enforcement officers and judges but must produce names (with remand procedures for redaction and opportunity to object).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PFUR) | Defendant's Argument (SERS/Intervenors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PFUR waived/withdrew its request for the 3,851 Individual Objectors’ names/addresses | PFUR never unequivocally withdrew; it still sought those records and only offered opt-out via web form | OOR/SERS treated PFUR statements as waiver | Court: PFUR did not waive; reversed OOR and remanded for merits review of Individual Objectors’ claims |
| Whether OOR’s late allowance of third-party participation and acceptance of unsigned SERS forms violated RTKL or due process | PFUR: third parties filed up to decision date; PFUR had no chance to respond; unsigned forms lack evidentiary value | OOR/SERS: appeals officer has discretion; expedited RTKL process permits ordering additional participation; third parties had notice/opportunity to participate | Court: OOR acted within discretion; no due-process violation in accepting filings without live hearing; but on remand OOR should consider PFUR’s objection to reliance on unsworn forms |
| Whether personal-security exemption protects CIVEA members’ addresses (classwide) | PFUR: Corrections’ affidavits insufficient to exempt entire CIVEA class | Corrections: inmates pose substantial threats to employees, affidavits show risk to staff (including non-COs) | Court: affirmed exemption only for CIVEA members who work in correctional facilities and have regular personal interaction with inmates; remanded regarding others |
| Whether home addresses of law enforcement officers and judges (and household members) are exempt and whether names must be withheld | PFUR: requester does not seek law-enforcement/judge addresses; if SERS withholds, it should redact addresses but produce names so requester can challenge status | SERS: affidavit shows existence of such members and PTO to withhold addresses; withheld addresses of household members as well | Court: addresses of law enforcement officers/judges (including household addresses) are exempt under RTKL §708(b)(6)(i)(C); names are not exempt — SERS must produce responsive names but may withhold addresses; OOR to allow PFUR to object on remand |
| Whether superannuation-age retirees’ addresses are exempt under personal-security exemption | SERS: superannuated retirees are vulnerable to fraud/abuse; expert affidavits support class exemption | PFUR: insufficient competent evidence of substantial and demonstrable risk | Court: affirmed that SERS failed to meet burden; exemption not established for the class |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa.) (RTKL expedited procedures and appeals-officer discretion)
- Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (personal-security exemption persuasive in prison context)
- State Employees’ Retirement Sys. v. Fultz, 107 A.3d 860 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (treatment of law-enforcement/judge-address exemption and related holdings)
- Prison Legal News v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (RTKL requester has no right to hearing or discovery; due process limits)
- Sherry v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (testimonial affidavits can support RTKL exemption)
- Office of Lieutenant Governor v. Mohn, 67 A.3d 123 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (no constitutional privacy right in home address)