Full text of the decision

Public employers traditionally have struggled with balancing their duty to comply with the Ohio public records laws against the privacy interests of their employees. That struggle recently turned into a precedent-setting Supreme Court case in State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Johnson, 106 Ohio St. 3d 160, 2005- Ohio-4384, 833 N.E.2d 274 (2005). While the Court’s decision is very narrow and limited to the facts of this case, the decision should be of great interest to any political subdivision that has ever been asked to provide the home addresses of its employees in response to a public records request.

The dispute started with a request by the Columbus Dispatch to the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) to release the payroll records of all state employees. The payroll records contain each state employee’s name, employment address, residential address, position, salary, leave balances, benefit information and a number of other data fields. For years, DAS provided the Columbus Dispatch with this payroll information, redacting only the social security numbers and other limited information of its employees before releasing the records.

But with increased concerns for public security, employee safety and identity theft, DAS revisited its practice of freely releasing this information and, in 2003, refused to provide certain home address information to the Columbus Dispatch. Much of the other payroll information was released, but home addresses were redacted. The Dispatch then requested the W-2 files for each state employee. Again, DAS provided most of these records, but redacted the home addresses. The Dispatch then requested documents containing employees’ home addresses directly from Ohio’s various state agencies. State agencies also complied with the request, but redacted home addresses.

The Dispatch brought a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio to compel DAS and the state agencies to release the home addresses under Ohio’s Public Records Act. In addition to attorney fees, the Dispatch sought the immediate release of all home address information for all state employees. Citing Supreme Court precedent in support of its arguments, the Dispatch argued that all home addresses were public records and stressed that it was entitled to the information for various newsgathering purposes.

The State argued that home addresses were not a public record. In the alternative, the State argued that if home addresses were public record, they were exempt from disclosure for various reasons. Primarily, the State emphasized its concern over the employees’ constitutional right to privacy.

During the course of the litigation, most employees’ home addresses were actually provided to the Dispatch. Home addresses that were withheld belonged to peace officers, firefighters and emergency medical technicians. The State also went through an exhaustive and invasive process of questioning its employees about any personal situations that might trigger a constitutionally protected right to privacy in their home address information. As a result, the state withheld home addresses of employees who had been threatened or harmed, who had restraining orders, or who worked with dangerous populations, like inmates and parolees, for example.

In its opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court emphasized that the starting point for any public records claim is that the law is to be “construed liberally in favor of broad access, and any doubt is resolved in favor of disclosure of public records.” The Court then turned to the definition of a “record” under the law and held that the residential addresses of state employees would generally not fit within the definition of “records” in R.C. 149.011(G) and 149.43. In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied upon the plain words of the statute.

R.C. 149.011(G) defines “records” for purposes of the Public Records Act as:

any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or characteristic, including an electronic record as defined in section 1306.01 of the Revised Code, created or received by or coming under the jurisdiction of any public office of the state or its political subdivisions, which serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office. [emphasis added]

The Court noted that the state-maintained records of its employee’s home addresses satisfied the first two prongs of this three-part definition because they were (1) items, and (2) were received by state agencies.

The Court found, though, that home addresses did not satisfy the third part of the R.C. 149.011(G) definition of home addresses; they did not document the functions of the public office under the facts and circumstances of this case. The Court held that “[a]t best, home addresses represent contact information used as a matter of administrative convenience” and that “home addresses generally document the places to which state employees return after they have performed the work comprising the ‘organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities’ of their state agencies.” [emphasis in original] The Court stated that simply because such information was received and kept by a state government office did not transform it into a record.

The Court stressed that the holding in this case “has no application beyond the specific confines of the issue in this case” and stated that it “will reject as unpersuasive the arguments of governmental bodies in future cases attempting to place great weight on this case as precedent in unrelated contexts.” In fact, the Court noted that there may be some limited exceptions to its ruling, such as if a public employee permanently worked from home or if a particular job required that the employee live within a certain jurisdiction.

Having found that home addresses were not a record in this instance, the Court did not need to look further to determine if any exceptions to the public record law applied. Thus, the Court never reached the issue of whether or not a constitutional right of privacy was triggered.

While the case was a victory for public employees concerned about the privacy of their personal information, it is a very narrow holding, and one that cannot be greatly expanded to encompass other types of employee information. Public employers must remain diligent about honoring the requirements of the public records laws and cannot presume that any “private” employee information, including a home address, is automatically exempt from disclosure.

Instead, public employers should carefully apply and examine the definition of a “record” as the first step of a legal analysis. If the document is truly a “record” then the employer should determine if some statutory exemption applies. And if it appears that no exceptions apply, the employer should release the information. As the Ohio Supreme Court held in State ex rel Dispatch and a myriad of other cases, the presumption is in favor of disclosure.

Reprinted from Finley’s Ohio Municipal Service, with the permission of the publisher and copyright owner, West Group.