Allegheny County Department of Administrative Services v. Parsons
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 73 C.D. 2012
January 14, 2013
The Commonwealth Court ruled that because a contractor’s employees’ names, dates of birth, and hiring dates were not directly related to its performance of services for a government agency, those records were not subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law.
Background
Jim Parsons, a television reporter in Pittsburgh, made a Right to Know Law request to the Department of Administrative Services of Allegheny County for the “payroll lists” of A Second Chance, Inc., a non-profit with whom the county contracted to provide social services.
The county granted Parsons’ request in part, supplying the job title and salary information. The county and the non-profit did not, however, provide employee names, hire dates, or dates of birth as Parsons requested.
Following a series of proceedings before the Office of Open Records, a trial court, the Commonwealth Court, and the trial court again, Parsons returned to the Commonwealth Court to appeal the partial denial of his request.
Commonwealth Court Decision
Under the RTKL, a record in the possession of a third party is subject to disclosure if the third party “has contracted to perform a governmental function on behalf of the agency” and the record “directly relates to the governmental function.”
The court looks at this relationship on a case-by-case basis. The court considers both of these criteria to determine if a record is accessible under the RTKL. If both are met, the record is public under the RTKL.
In addressing the first criteria, the court stated that the non-profit performs social services for the county and determined that these social services are a governmental function. With the first criteria satisfied, the court considered the second one.
In this case, the non-profit only submitted a staff roster to the county with identification numbers and did not need to provide the county with employee names as part of its government contract. Likewise, the employees’ birth dates and hire dates are not contained in any documents relating to the non-profit’s licensing or performance of the contract.
Consequently, the court determined that records of employee names, birthdays, and hire dates are not necessary for completion of the governmental function. As such, employee names, birthdays, and hire dates do not directly relate to the governmental function. The second part of the test was not satisfied. Therefore, the employee records are not made public under the RTKL.
Nevertheless, the court made clear that employees’ birth dates are not categorically exempt under the RTKL.
▪ January 14, 2013 – Commonwealth Court Opinion – No. 73 C.D. 2012