State News v. Michigan State University
372307
Mich. Ct. App.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiff requested, under Michigan’s FOIA, notifications from Michigan State University (MSU) concerning employees with more than one allegation of sexual misconduct where no misconduct was found.
- MSU responded, but redacted employees’ names, citing the privacy exemption found in MCL 15.243(1)(a).
- Plaintiff appealed the redactions and, when denied, filed suit in the Michigan Court of Claims, claiming FOIA violation.
- MSU moved for summary disposition, arguing the names were protected by the privacy exemption; the plaintiff also sought summary disposition.
- The Court of Claims denied MSU’s motion and granted summary disposition to the plaintiff, finding the public interest outweighed the privacy interest.
- MSU appealed this adverse decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redacting employees’ names violates FOIA’s pro-disclosure policy | Names are needed to hold MSU accountable and understand how recurring allegations are handled | Disclosure of names is a clear invasion of privacy, especially absent findings of misconduct | Court held public interest in disclosure outweighs privacy; MSU must disclose names |
| Applicability of the FOIA privacy exemption to requested names | Disclosure is necessary for public understanding of MSU's handling of sexual misconduct | Disclosure provides negligible public benefit, significant privacy harm | Exemption does not apply; insufficient showing of unwarranted invasion of privacy |
| Whether names contribute to public understanding of government operations | Identifying employees allows investigation into repeat allegations and institutional accountability | Already disclosed sufficient info; names not necessary to monitor compliance with law | Names are necessary for meaningful oversight and comparison |
| Whether general privacy interest for unsubstantiated allegations outweighs public interest | Previous cases like Nassar demonstrate public importance; public has strong need for transparency | Individual privacy is paramount absent proof of wrongdoing | Named disclosure is justified by the strong public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Rataj v. Romulus, 306 Mich App 735 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (sets standard for summary disposition and emphasizes FOIA’s pro-disclosure nature)
- ESPN, Inc. v. Mich. State Univ., 311 Mich App 662 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (FOIA balancing test for privacy exemption; necessity of names for public oversight)
- Detroit Free Press v. Warren, 250 Mich App 164 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (FOIA’s core purpose is public understanding of how government operates)
- Bitterman v. Village of Oakley, 309 Mich App 53 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (sets out two-prong privacy-exemption test under FOIA)
- Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Kalamazoo Sch. Dist., 181 Mich App 752 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989) (distinguished; involved only bare allegations, not completed investigations)