Supreme Court Grants Review of Appellate Court Decision Eroding Public Safety Employees' Right to Privacy
Court to Determine Whether Salaries of High Earning Public Employees Are Confidential
On Septemeber 7, 2005 I posted the following article regarding the First District COurt of Appeal's decision which ruled on the confidentiality of the salaries of high earning public employees. On July 29, 2005 the California Supreme Court granted review of the appellate decision. The ruling could have widespread implications and, if the appellate decision is upheld, might be used as precedent to seek salary information of public employees earning less than $100,000 annually. The text of the original article is as follows:
The privacy rights of public employees recently suffered another blow. On April 18, 2005 in the case of International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Superior Court of Alameda County, the First District Court of Appeal issued a decision upholding the trial court's grant of a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request by the Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc. (CCN)
CCN filed a CPRA request for records indicating the name, job title, and gross salaries of all CIty of Oakland employees whose salaries (including overtime) exceeded $100,000.00 during the fiscal year 2003-2004. The City refused to identify individual employees and relied on Government Code Section 6254(c) which exempts personnel files from disclosures which "would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy", Penal Code Section 832.7 which protects the confidentiality of peace officer personnel records, the State Constitutional right to privacy and two prior appellate court cases which supported a privacy claim.
The trial court rejected the City's argumnents and held: "Clearly, most employees, public or private, would prefer information about their jobs or earnings not be published in the media. But in Oakland, as in other cities, and indeed, for high-earning government employees generally, there is a long tradition of making such information available to the public, so that citizens can effectively monitor the activities of the government. The Court concludes that the disclosure sought in this case is not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and that [the] public interest in disclosure outweighs the interests served by nondisclosure."
After reviewing the CPRA and a number of decisions addressing the right of privacy, the appellate court concurred in the trial court's decision and held: "The Oakland City Council [who had previously passed an ordinance requiring the disclosure of the exact gross salary and paid benefits available to every public employee], our state Legislature, the legislatures of other states, and Congress have all demonstrated, through affirmative enactments or the failure to respond to regulations or court decisions requiring disclosure, that the salaries paid to public employees are public records, not private matters." The appellate court likewise rejected the argument that the salaries of peace officer public employees were private and ordered the disclosure of Oakland police officers earning $100,00.00 or more during the fiscal year.
There are a couple of unanswered questions as a result of this case. If the City of Oakland had not enacted an ordinance requring salary disclosure would the courts have ruled similarly? Although a review of the trial court's decision appears to suggest the ordinance was tantamount to a waiver, the appellate court's holdings appear to be broad enough to require disclosure even in the absence of such an ordinance.
Also, the CPRA request and the specific ruling by the courts limited disclosure of public employees' salaries only insofar as the salary was at least $100,000.00. The decision did not specifically rule on the issue of whether all public employees' salaries were subject to disclosure. Again, however, the decision would appear to require such disclosure absent compelling evidence as to why it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Although this is a single appellate decision and is not controlling in the entire State of California, we can anticipate more media requests of this nature and, in turn, similar issues to be decided by other appelate districts. Ultimately, this is a matter which will likely be resolved by the State and possibly the United States Supreme Courts.
Court to Determine Whether Salaries of High Earning Public Employees Are Confidential
Source: Kasey Christopher Clark, Chief Legal Counsel
Date: 9/7/2005
The privacy rights of public employees recently suffered another blow. On April 18, 2005 in the case of International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Superior Court of Alameda County, the First District Court of Appeal issued a decision upholding the trial court's grant of a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request by the Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc. (CCN)
CCN filed a CPRA request for records indicating the name, job title, and gross salaries of all CIty of Oakland employees whose salaries (including overtime) exceeded $100,000.00 during the fiscal year 2003-2004. The City refused to identify individual employees and relied on Government Code Section 6254(c) which exempts personnel files from disclosures which "would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy", Penal Code Section 832.7 which protects the confidentiality of peace officer personnel records, the State Constitutional right to privacy and two prior appellate court cases which supported a privacy claim.
The trial court rejected the City's argumnents and held: "Clearly, most employees, public or private, would prefer information about their jobs or earnings not be published in the media. But in Oakland, as in other cities, and indeed, for high-earning government employees generally, there is a long tradition of making such information available to the public, so that citizens can effectively monitor the activities of the government. The Court concludes that the disclosure sought in this case is not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and that [the] public interest in disclosure outweighs the interests served by nondisclosure."
After reviewing the CPRA and a number of decisions addressing the right of privacy, the appellate court concurred in the trial court's decision and held: "The Oakland City Council [who had previously passed an ordinance requiring the disclosure of the exact gross salary and paid benefits available to every public employee], our state Legislature, the legislatures of other states, and Congress have all demonstrated, through affirmative enactments or the failure to respond to regulations or court decisions requiring disclosure, that the salaries paid to public employees are public records, not private matters." The appellate court likewise rejected the argument that the salaries of peace officer public employees were private and ordered the disclosure of Oakland police officers earning $100,00.00 or more during the fiscal year.
There are a couple of unanswered questions as a result of this case. If the City of Oakland had not enacted an ordinance requring salary disclosure would the courts have ruled similarly? Although a review of the trial court's decision appears to suggest the ordinance was tantamount to a waiver, the appellate court's holdings appear to be broad enough to require disclosure even in the absence of such an ordinance.
Also, the CPRA request and the specific ruling by the courts limited disclosure of public employees' salaries only insofar as the salary was at least $100,000.00. The decision did not specifically rule on the issue of whether all public employees' salaries were subject to disclosure. Again, however, the decision would appear to require such disclosure absent compelling evidence as to why it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Although this is a single appellate decision and is not controlling in the entire State of California, we can anticipate more media requests of this nature and, in turn, similar issues to be decided by other appelate districts. Ultimately, this is a matter which will likely be resolved by the State and possibly the United States Supreme Courts.
| contactus@cslea.com | (800) 551-1414 | 2029 H Street • Sacramento, CA 95811 |