State ex rel. Quolke v. Strongsville City School District Board of Education
142 Ohio St. 3d 509
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Strongsville City School District hired temporary replacement teachers for a March 2013 strike; picketers and supporters harassed, photographed, and intimidated applicants and replacement teachers during the strike, and some incidents posed physical danger (e.g., objects thrown at cars, alleged reckless driving).
- Quolke (union president) — through counsel — requested public records: names, contact info, ID numbers, and payroll info for replacement teachers employed during the strike.
- The board produced payroll records but redacted names, citing privacy and safety concerns; Quolke sued in mandamus to compel disclosure under Ohio’s Public Records Act.
- The Eighth District granted the writ, finding insufficient evidence of ongoing risk after the strike ended (April 28, 2013), and awarded Quolke attorney fees.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed: Quolke had standing despite requesting records via counsel; the board’s privacy-based exception to disclosure did not apply because risk had largely receded by the time of the court’s decision; attorney-fee award was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue when request made through counsel | Quolke is an "aggrieved person" and may seek mandamus even if requests were made by counsel | The board: only the actual requester may sue and it was not informed Quolke was the requester | Quolke has standing; identity/reasons of requester are irrelevant under R.C. 149.43 and controlling precedent |
| Whether names of replacement teachers are exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v) due to privacy/ safety | Quolke: names are public records and must be disclosed absent a present substantial risk | Board: disclosure would violate constitutional privacy and place teachers at substantial risk of serious harm given harassment and some physical incidents | During the strike disclosure could be withheld, but because the strike had ended and the board presented little evidence of ongoing risk, names must be released at time of the court’s mandamus determination |
| Proper timing for evaluating risk to privacy/safety in public-records mandamus | Quolke: court should assess risk as it exists when issuing the writ | Board: safety concerns during hiring/strike justify continuing nondisclosure | Court must evaluate facts as they exist when ruling on the writ; here risk had receded by decision time, so nondisclosure was not justified |
| Award of attorney fees to successful relator | Quolke: entitled to fees; represented by independent counsel and is the identified client | Board: fees inappropriate because Quolke may not be personally liable (union is real party in interest) | Fee award affirmed; relator was a client of independent firm and someone must bear fees, so statutory award proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420 (1994) (Public Records Act grants broad access; requester identity not required)
- State ex rel. Rocker v. Guernsey Cty. Sheriffs Office, 126 Ohio St.3d 224 (2010) (Public Records Act construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (2011) (relator must prove entitlement to mandamus by clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Craig, 132 Ohio St.3d 68 (2012) (constitutional privacy can bar disclosure where release poses substantial risk of serious bodily harm; strict scrutiny / narrow tailoring required)
- Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 129 Ohio St.3d 304 (2011) (public office must honor records requests by "any person" and cannot condition access on disclosure of requester identity)