Delaware County v. Schaefer
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 256 C.D. 2011
March 22, 2012
The Commonwealth Court ruled that a request for the dates of birth of all of a county’s employees are exempt under the personal security exemption of the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) in light of a demonstrated risk of identity theft.
The Commonwealth Court sent the case back to the trial court for the county to provide additional information supporting its decision to deny a request for all of its employees’ home addresses.
Background
Mari Schaefer, a reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer, submitted a RTKL request to Delaware County for a complete list of the county’s government payroll list, including employee names, positions and departments, home addresses, and dates of birth.
The county provided Schaefer with the names, positions, departments, and salaries of the employees, but denied the request for home addresses and dates of birth. The County cited three RTKL exemptions, including the “personal harm and personal security” exemption.
Schaefer appealed to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), who ordered the disclosure of the home addresses and dates of birth. After the county appealed, the trial court reversed the OOR’s decision, and then Schaefer appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court decision
On appeal, Schaefer contended that because the RTKL does not specifically exempt employees’ home addresses and dates of birth, that information should simply be disclosed. The court disagreed and analyzed whether the information was exempt from disclosure under the “personal security” exemption. According to the court, that exemption extends beyond just physical harm and includes security risks like identity theft.
Based on the court’s decision in a prior case, Governor’s Office of Administration v. Purcell, the Court ruled that dates of birth are exempt from disclosure under the RTKL. Looking at the extensive affidavits provided by the county in this case, the court reasoned that dates of birth are highly sensitive and, in conjunction with individual names or personal addresses, can pose a risk of identity theft. As such, the court determined not to order the disclosure of the dates of birth of the employees.
In denying the request for home addresses, the county simply referred to “The President’s Identity Theft Task Force Report,” which made broad claims and sweeping generalizations. The court stated that a more thorough explanation of the risk of releasing home addresses was necessary and that more evidence was needed. As the court explained, “one’s personal security is a serious matter that deserves more thoughtful consideration on a complete record.”
Accordingly, it remanded the case to the trial court to allow the county to provide additional evidence and for that court to conduct a more complete inquiry into the application of the personal security exemption.
▪ March 22, 2012 — Commonwealth Court Opinion — No. 256 C.D. 2011