Wa Public Employees Assoc. v. Wa State Center For C
49224-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- The Freedom Foundation (political nonprofit) requested, via Public Records Act (PRA) requests, state employees’ full names, birthdates, and work emails to support a campaign encouraging employees to opt out of union dues.
- State agencies determined records were disclosable and planned to release names paired with birthdates absent a court order.
- Several unions representing the affected state employees sought temporary and permanent injunctions to block disclosure; a temporary injunction was granted in part, but the superior court denied permanent injunctions.
- The unions appealed; this Court stayed release of the names paired with birthdates and reviewed whether article I, §7 (privacy) of the Washington Constitution protects that information.
- The Court analyzed (1) whether disclosure intrudes on a constitutionally protected private affair and (2) whether any authority of law (e.g., the PRA) justifies the intrusion; it also considered PRA injunction requirements and traditional injunctive-relief factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article I, §7 protects state employees’ full names paired with birthdates from disclosure | Such paired data reveals discrete personal information that can enable identity theft and other harms; employees reasonably expect privacy | PRA permits disclosure of public records; Nissen suggests no categorical constitutional protection for information in public records | Yes. Article I, §7 protects full names associated with corresponding birthdates for state employees |
| Whether the PRA or other "authority of law" justifies intrusion into that privacy interest | PRA does not "justify" intrusion because disclosure of names+birthdates does not further the PRA’s purpose of informing the public about government instruments | PRA authorizes disclosure of public records and thus permits release | No. While PRA may allow disclosure, it does not justify intruding on the constitutional privacy interest in names paired with birthdates |
| Whether unions satisfied PRA injunction requirements (public interest; substantial/irreparable harm) | Disclosure is not in public interest and would cause substantial, irreparable harm (privacy invasion, identity theft risk) | Public has an interest in disclosure under PRA; harms are speculative | Yes. Court found disclosure not in public interest and would substantially and irreparably harm employees |
| Whether general equitable injunction factors are met | Employees have a clear right, imminent threat, and would suffer actual and substantial injury | Agencies will disclose absent order; public interest favors disclosure | Yes. The unions met the three traditional injunction elements; permanent injunction should have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- SEIU Local 925 v. Freedom Foundation, 197 Wn. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (sets two-part test for article I, §7: intrusion into private affairs, then whether authority of law justifies it)
- Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (Wash. 2015) (discusses limits on constitutional privacy claims tied to public records; language relied on but treated as dicta here)
- Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, 177 Wn.2d 417 (Wash. 2013) (PRA mandates broad disclosure; exemptions construed narrowly)
- Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Office of the Attorney General, 177 Wn.2d 467 (Wash. 2013) (agency must disclose unless specific PRA exemption or other statute applies)
- Huff v. Wyman, 184 Wn.2d 643 (Wash. 2015) (sets general equitable requirements for permanent injunctions)