Highlands Sch. Dist. v. Rittmeyer

243 A.3d 755

HIGHLANDS SCHOOL DISTRICT

v.Brian RITTMEYER and Tribune-Review, Appellants

No. 163 C.D. 2020

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued October 15, 2020

Decided December 3, 2020

Jordan Lee Strassburger, Pittsburgh, for Appellants.

Amanda Jewell, Pittsburgh, for Appellee Highlands School District.

Mary Joanne Miller, Pittsburgh, for Appellee Highlands Education Association, PSEA/NEA.

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH

Brian Rittmeyer and the Tribune-Review appeal from the January 6, 2020 order of the Honorable W. Terrence O'Brien of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court), which reversed the final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) and denied Rittmeyer's Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)¹ request for the names of two employees of the Highlands School District (Highlands) who had been placed on unpaid leave.

Background

Rittmeyer is a staff writer for the Tribune-Review (collectively, Rittmeyer). Rittmeyer learned that, at a public school board meeting, Highlands had placed an employee on unpaid disciplinary leave. In order to protect the employee's identity, Highlands referred to the employee as "employee #5381." (Trial Court Opinion, 4/27/2020 (Tr. Ct. Op.), at 1.) On February 18, 2019, Rittmeyer submitted a RTKL request seeking information about this employee, specifically the employee's name, job title, length of employment, salary, and a statement of the charges that resulted in the disciplinary action. Highlands provided Rittmeyer with the employee's job title, length of employment, and salary, but denied him access to the employee's name and the statement of the charges. Rittmeyer appealed to the OOR, contending that Highlands was obligated to disclose the employee's name. On April 30, 2019, the OOR granted Rittmeyer's appeal and ordered Highlands to provide Rittmeyer with the employee's name.

On April 16, 2019, Rittmeyer filed a similar request for information concerning another employee who also was placed on unpaid leave. This employee was identified as "employee #4367." Id. at 2. Highlands again refused to disclose the name of this employee, and Rittmeyer appealed to the OOR.² In a decision issued on June 13, 2019, which was nearly identical to that concerning employee #5381, the OOR ordered Highlands to provide Rittmeyer with the name of employee #4367.

Before the OOR, Highlands argued that the names of the employees were protected from disclosure under section 708(b)(7)(viii) of the RTKL, which excludes, in relevant part, "records relating to an agency employee," including "[i]nformation regarding discipline, demotion or discharge contained in a personnel file." 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(7)(viii). This exemption, however, "shall not apply to the final action of an agency that results in demotion or discharge." Id. The OOR concluded that section 708(b)(7)(viii) was inapplicable because Rittmeyer merely sought the names of the employees, not any record contained in their personnel files. Reasoning that the names of public employees are generally considered public information, and further noting that Highlands lists the names of its employees on its website, the OOR concluded that Highlands failed to show that the names of the specific employees were exempt from disclosure under section 708(b)(7)(viii) of the RTKL. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 86a-87a; 126a-27a.)

Highlands appealed the OOR's orders concerning both employees to the trial court, and the matters were consolidated. The trial court reversed the OOR's determinations on January 6, 2020. In its supporting opinion, the trial court disagreed with the OOR concerning the applicability of the exception set forth at section 708(b)(7)(viii) of the RTKL. The trial court noted that the exception precludes disclosure of "[i]nformation regarding discipline, demotion or discharge contained in a personnel file," 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(7)(viii), and observed that, "[o]bviously, an employee's name is contained in the personnel file." (Tr. Ct. Op. at 4.) While the OOR relied upon the generally public nature of the names of public employees, the trial court opined that here, "it is not a random name that is requested, but the name of an employee in connection with disciplinary action." Id. To disclose the names of employees subject to discipline, the trial court opined, "would thwart the purpose of confidentiality." Id. The trial court concluded that an absurd result would occur if section 708(b)(7)(viii) of the RTKL was interpreted as exempting the statement of charges against the employees, but requiring disclosure of those employees’ names. Id. The trial court reasoned that the "demotion or discharge" provision did not apply, inasmuch as Highlands’ decision to place the employees on unpaid leave was not a "final action" resulting in their demotion or discharge. Id. Thus, in the trial court's view, section 708(b)(7)(viii) of the RTKL applied and protected the employees’ names from disclosure.

The trial court further rejected Rittmeyer's suggestion that the RTKL was superseded by a provision of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code).³ Rittmeyer invoked section 1127 of the School Code, which provides:

Before any professional employe having attained a status of permanent tenure is dismissed by the board of school directors, such board of school directors shall furnish such professional employe with a detailed written statement of the charges upon which his or her proposed dismissal is based and shall conduct a hearing. A written notice signed by the president and attested by the secretary of the board of school directors shall be forwarded by registered mail to the professional employe setting forth the time and place when and where such professional employe will be given an opportunity to be heard either in person or by counsel, or both, before the board of school directors and setting forth a detailed statement of the charges. Such hearing shall not be sooner than ten (10) days nor later than fifteen (15) days after such written notice ....

Id. at 5 (quoting 24 P.S. § 11-1127 ).

The trial court observed that this section of the School Code requires a school board to issue a pre-termination resolution and to provide an employee with a statement of charges prior to a hearing on the matter. This did not conflict with the relevant provision of the RTKL, the trial court reasoned, because the contemplated action is not the "final action" to which section 708(b)(7)(viii) refers. Here, the court noted that Rittmeyer requested the records relating to the employees after the school board issued a pre-termination resolution authorizing disciplinary action and the issuance of a statement of charges to the employees, but before the board took any "final action" with respect to the employees’ discipline. (Tr. Ct. Op. at 5.) Moreover, contrary to Rittmeyer's argument, the trial court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the pre-charge determination be made public. Id. at 6. The trial court further commented that, even if the pre-charge determination must be made public, the name of the employee would not be relevant because "it is the employee's conduct that is considered, not his or her identity." Id. Because it found the cited provision of the School Code inapplicable, and because the "RTKL keeps matters involving the discipline of employees confidential, unless there is a final action that results in demotion or discharge," the trial court concluded that Rittmeyer was not entitled to the the names of employee #5381 or employee #4367.

Rittmeyer appealed the trial court's order to this Court.⁴ Rittmeyer presents a single question for review: whether the requested names are exempt from disclosure under the RTKL.

Discussion

A. The Parties’ Arguments

Rittmeyer places little focus upon the RTKL itself, and instead contends that public disclosure of the employees’ names is mandated not by the RTKL, but by the School Code. Rittmeyer emphasizes that, as discussed in Reese v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform , 643 Pa. 530, 173 A.3d 1143, 1149-50 (2017), the RTKL expressly states that, in the event of a conflict with another law concerning records access, the RTKL shall not apply. (Rittmeyer's Br. at 10.) Specifically, the RTKL states that, if its "provisions ... regarding access to records conflict with any other Federal or State law, the provisions of [the RTKL] shall not apply." Section 3101.1 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.3101.1 ; see also section 305(a)(3), (b)(3) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.305(a)(3), (b)(3) (records in possession of a Commonwealth, local, legislative, or judicial agency shall be presumed to be public unless "the record is exempt from disclosure under any other Federal or State law or regulation or judicial order or decree"). Because Rittmeyer interprets section 1127 of the School Code, supra , to require the disclosure of a professional employee's identity in order to initiate the disciplinary process, Rittmeyer contends that this provision of the School Code conflicts with section 708(b)(7)(viii) of the RTKL. Therefore, according to Rittmeyer, the School Code must prevail.

Rittmeyer adds that "to keep the employee's name anonymous would make the whole public requirement of a resolution an exercise in futility." (Rittmeyer's Br. at 10.) If the school board may pass a public resolution authorizing the initiation of a disciplinary process without identifying the employee subject to discipline, Rittmeyer asserts, then the members of the public attending the school board meeting would be "mere potted plants." Id. at 11. That is, without knowing the identity of the employee at issue, the public would be unable to offer any meaningful comment on the matter. Id.

Where the trial court observed that nothing in section 1127 of the School Code requires a "public" resolution, Rittmeyer invokes the Sunshine Act⁵ to suggest the...