Governor’s Office of Administration v. Purcell
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 2452, C.D. 2010
December 29, 2011
The Commonwealth Court held that, under the facts presented in this case, the state properly denied a request for the birthdates of all Pennsylvania state employees under the Right to Know Law’s personal security exemption.
Background
Dylan Purcell made a Right to Know Law request to the Governor’s Office of Administration seeking a list of all active state employees and their salaries, as well as certain identifying information, including their birthdates. He had received this same information from the office many times before.
The office granted Purcell’s latest request in part, providing all the requested information and the year in which each employee was born, but redacting the month and day of their birth. The Office cited the personal security exemption as the basis for its redactions.
Purcell appealed to the Office of Open Records, which ruled that the redactions were improper. The Governor’s Office then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court Decision
The court first ruled that the personal security exemption does not provide a ground for denying requests on the basis of “privacy.”
The court pointed out that birthdates are not listed among the various personal identification information that the RTKL exempts. Furthermore, because the RTKL specifically exempts birthdates of certain individuals (children), it is clear that the General Assembly did not intend for all birthdates to be exempt from disclosure.
For a record to be exempt from disclosure on personal security grounds, the office was required to show a “reasonable likelihood” of a “substantial and demonstrable risk” to a person’s security.
The office submitted extensive affidavits from experts who claimed that releasing state employees’ birthdates could lead to identity theft, fraud, and phishing scams. The court found these affidavits to be credible and ruled that, in this case, the office “proved that the personal security exception applies and protects the month and date of birth from disclosure.”
The court therefore reversed the OOR’s decision and ruled that the office properly denied the request for all state employees’ birthdates under the personal security exemption.