By Jordan L. Jones
In Martin v. Riverside Sch. Dist. No. 416, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three, held that: (1) a teacher’s records were not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the personal information and the investigative records exemptions of Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA), and (2) disclosure of the records did not violate the right to privacy.
Mr. Martin was a teacher in the Riverside School District who was fired for engaging in sexual conduct in his classroom with a consenting adult who was his former student. A reporter with the Spokesman-Review subsequently submitted a public records request to the School District seeking information regarding Mr. Martin’s termination.
Mr. Martin contends that: (1) PRA’s personal information and investigative records exemptions prohibit disclosure of material which would violate his privacy, and (2) “he had a right to privacy in his identity and the personal information in the records because the information concerned his private life and was not specific incidents of misconduct during the course of employment.”
The Court stated that the PRA “is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records . . . [and a] party seeking to enjoin production of documents under the PRA bears the burden of proving that an exemption [applies otherwise].” In order for the exemptions of the PRA to apply, “Mr. Martin must establish that he has a right to privacy in the records and that disclosure of the records would violate his right to privacy.”
The Court noted that “[u]nder the PRA, a person’s right to privacy ‘is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.” See RCW 42.56.050.
Admittedly, the first prong is satisfied. ‘Disclosure of the identity of a teacher accused of sexual misconduct is highly offensive to a reasonable person’ . . .[but] he fails to satisfy the second prong of the right to privacy test . . . . The identity of a public school teacher and the substantiated allegations regarding the teacher’s misconduct that occurred on school grounds is of legitimate interest to the public.
The Court held that the records pertaining to Mr. Martin’s termination were subject to disclosure under the PRA and relevant case law.
Editor’s note [Erica Shelley Nelson]: This case is an important reminder of the expansive scope of the PRA. No matter how offensive the potential disclosure may be to a public employee, if the information sought involves a legitimate interest to the public, such as information relating to sexual misconduct of a former teacher, then it will likely be subject to disclosure (unless another exemption applies).
