Case Title: Wyoming Dept. of Transp. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union 800

Citation: 

Docket Number: 95-47

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-12-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wyoming Dept. of Transp. v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union 8001995 WY 211908 P.2d 970Case Number: 95-47, 95-48Decided: 12/22/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF 
TRANSPORTATION;

 Don Diller in his official capacity as 
Director of Transportation, 

Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF 
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION 800, 

Appellee (Plaintiff). 

WYOMING CONTRACTORS' 
ASSOCIATION, 

Appellant (Intervening 
Defendant),

 v. 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF 
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION 800, 

Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Appeal from The District 
Court, Laramie County, Edward L. Grant, J.

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Lillian Nicholas 
Sharpe, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, for appellant.

David F. Evans 
of Hickey, Mackey, Evans, Walker & Stewart, Cheyenne, for 
appellee.

Raymond W. 
Martin and John Coppede of Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, Cheyenne, for 
intervening defendant appellant.

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      In this appeal we 
review a district court's order directing the Wyoming Transportation Department 
(WTD) to release payroll records, including the names and addresses of workers, 
which were provided to WTD by contractors for the purpose of aiding WTD in 
verifying compliance with the prevailing wage rate. The International Union of 
Operating Engineers Local Union 800 (Engineers) sought copies of those records 
and WTD agreed to release them, but only with the names and addresses of the 
workers expunged.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      WTD raises this 
issue:

Did the Wyoming 
Department of Transportation properly limit the disclosure of federal certified 
payrolls by refusing to release the names and addresses of private individuals 
employed on federal-aid projects?

[¶4]      Intervening 
appellant, Wyoming Contractors' Association,1 poses this question:

Whether the district 
court erred in ordering a state agency to honor a public records request for 
information about private citizens where disclosure would reveal little or 
nothing about the agency's own conduct.

[¶5]      The Engineers 
summarize the subject of this appeal thus:

Does the Wyoming 
Department of Transportation have the right to delete the names and addresses of 
individual workers from certified payrolls of Wyoming contractors, held in the 
department's possession pursuant to prevailing wage statutes when said records 
are requested by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 
800?

[¶6]      The parties 
submitted this matter to the district court on stipulated facts: WTD contracts 
with private contractors to undertake highway construction projects. If the 
highway is financed by only state funds, WTD requires a wage report which 
identifies the number of workers employed on that project, but not their names 
and addresses. If federal funds are expended on a project, then the contractors 
must submit a similar report which complies with the Davis-Bacon Act.2 Briefly stated, the purpose of the 
Davis-Bacon Act is to protect workers by guaranteeing them minimum wages based 
on local prevailing wage rates.3 That report requires inclusion of 
the names and addresses of all workers. For those projects which involve federal 
funds, WTD also requires that a parallel state report be made and, again, that 
form does not include workers' names and addresses. WTD also interviews workers 
on such highway projects (though a few may occasionally be missed) concerning 
compliance with wage rate laws and regulations. That form does include employee 
names. Attached to the stipulation was a policy statement from the United States 
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHA), stating the 
information on the Davis-Bacon form would be released by the FHA only after 
names, addresses, and social security numbers had been expunged.4 That policy statement goes on to 
provide:

When a requester seeks 
access to payroll records under a State FOIA, the State should respond in 
accordance with its own requirements. If those requirements permit the release 
of personal information, the State may release names, addresses, and social 
security numbers to the requester.

[¶7]      The Engineers 
sought copies of the Davis-Bacon/Copeland forms. WTD agreed to provide all WTD 
forms, as well as Davis-Bacon/Copeland forms, but with names and addresses 
expunged.5 The Engineers then sought relief 
from the district court as provided in WYO. STAT. § 16-4-203(f) (Supp. 1995). 
The district court directed WTD to provide the Davis-Bacon/Copeland forms 
without redaction of the names and addresses of workers.

[¶8]      WTD presents the 
issue as one involving construction of a statute. Therefore, our review is 
directed by our established standard:

Against this background 
of "legisprudence (the jurisprudence of legislation)", a useful outline of this 
court's method of statutory interpretation emerges. We read the text of the 
statute and pay attention to its internal structure and the functional relation 
between the parts and the whole. We make the determination as to meaning, that 
is, whether the statute's meaning is subject to varying interpretations. If we 
determine that the meaning is not subject to varying interpretations, that may 
end the exercise, although we may resort to extrinsic aids of interpretation, 
such as legislative history if available and rules of construction, to confirm 
the determination. On the other hand, if we determine that the meaning is 
subject to varying interpretations, we must resort to available extrinsic aids. 
If an ambiguous statute has been construed by an agency charged with 
administering it, we will accord deference to, but are not bound by, that 
construction. After all, the final construction of an ambiguous statute is a 
question for the court.

General Chemical 
Corp. v. Unemployment Insurance Comm'n, 902 P.2d 716, 718 (Wyo. 1995); Houghton 
v. Franscell, 870 P.2d 1050, 1053-54 (Wyo. 1994); Parker Land & Cattle Co. 
v. Wyoming Game & Fish Comm'n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1045 (Wyo. 1993).

[¶9]      All parties 
concede the records at issue are public records as contemplated by Wyoming's 
Public Record's Act6 and that WTD is the relevant 
custodian. However, the public records act places some limitations on the 
public's right of access to records. Pertinent to this appeal, WYO. STAT. § 
16-4-203 (Supp. 1995) provides:

(a) The custodian of any 
public records shall allow any person the right of inspection of the records or 
any portion thereof except on one (1) or more of the following grounds or as 
provided in subsection (b) or (d) of this section:

*           
*           
*           
*           *           
*

(ii) The inspection would 
be contrary to any federal statute or regulation issued thereunder having the 
force and effect of law;

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

(d) The custodian shall 
deny the right of inspection of the following records, unless otherwise provided 
by law:

(i) Medical, 
psychological and sociological data on individual persons, exclusive of 
coroners' autopsy reports;

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

(v) Trade secrets, 
privileged information and confidential commercial, financial, geological or 
geophysical data furnished by or obtained from any person;

[¶10]   We take note that WTD has its own 
set of regulations which guide it in responding to requests for public records. 
However, we also note WTD is not, in this circumstance, an agency with 
distinctive expertise to construe this special statute. Thus, we will not accord 
any deference to its construction of the statute or its parallel 
regulations.

[¶11]   Our precedents require the public 
records act be read in light of the legislative presumption of openness and in 
keeping with the constitutional right of access to public records. In addition, 
we construe the act liberally in favor of disclosure, interpreting all 
exemptions narrowly. The remedial purpose of the public records act is to permit 
access to public records unless disclosure would inflict irreparable harm 
contrary to protected rights. Houghton, 870 P.2d  at 1052-53.

[¶12]   Although it is not entirely clear 
from WTD's brief, it appears WTD contends release of the names and addresses 
would infract WYO. STAT. § 16-4-203(a)(ii) (inspection would be contrary to any 
federal statute or regulation issued thereunder having the force and effect of 
law). WTD does not point to a statute, or regulation issued under such a 
statute, to which release of this information would be contrary.7 We have found no such statute or 
regulation in our own search. The materials of record demonstrate that release 
of the disputed information is to be determined under Wyoming's public records 
statutes. We hold WYO. STAT. § 16-4-203(a)(ii) does not justify WTD's refusal to 
honor the Engineers' request for public records.

[¶13]   WTD also contends the disputed 
information constitutes "sociological data" which it is mandated to withhold 
under WYO. STAT. § 16-4-203(d)(i). Our statutes do not elaborate on the intended 
meaning of that phrase and our effort is, therefore, directed to an exploration 
of its ordinary meaning. Houghton, 870 P.2d  at 1054. The "ordinary meaning" 
postulated by WTD is quite broad and we will not attempt to replicate its 
argument with any specificity. We are satisfied the legislature was speaking of 
information collected by social scientists gathered in:

[T]he systematic study of 
the development, structure, and function of human groups conceived as processes 
of interaction or as organized patterns of collective behavior; the scientific 
analysis of a social institution as a functioning whole and as it relates to the 
rest of society; an analysis or exposition of the socially significant traits of 
a specific group, class or social milieu.

WEBSTER'S THIRD 
NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, "sociology" p. 2163 (1986).

[¶14]   The phrase "sociological data" is 
not unique to Wyoming statutes, but our research revealed it appears in only a 
few other instances.8 The phrase does appear in 
Colorado's public records act, but it is clear it does not usually encompass 
names and addresses there.9 COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 
24-72-204(3)(a)(I), (XI)(B), (c), (d) (West 1988 & Supp. 1995). An Illinois 
statute prohibits the Department of Employment Security from releasing 
sociological data about persons applying for employment or help. ILL. ANN. STAT. 
ch. 20, para 1015/3 (Smith-Hurd 1993). The names and addresses of those persons 
are not a part of that "sociological data."10 The phrase also appears 
occasionally in cases.11 As an example, in People v. Mata 
Aguilar, 35 Cal. 3d 785, 200 Cal. Rptr. 908, 910 n. 4, 915, 677 P.2d 1198, 1200 
(n. 4), 1205 (1984), it is used in reference to language ability, extent of 
formal education, attendance at segregated school, language ability of seasonal 
farm workers, and language ability of Spanish speaking individuals who enlist in 
the U.S. military.

[¶15]   In summary, it suffices for us to 
conclude the phrase "sociological data," as used in WYO. STAT. § 16-4-203(d)(i), 
does not authorize the WTD to withhold the disputed names and 
addresses.

[¶16]   WTD contends the information can be 
withheld on the basis it is a trade secret or confidential commercial or 
financial information. No cogent argument is made, nor is pertinent authority 
cited. We will not consider that contention further.

[¶17]   WTD contends a balancing of the 
interests of the affected workers in their privacy, and the benefit of the 
information ("what the government is up to"12) to the Engineers, requires a 
conclusion that the district court erred in ordering release of the names and 
addresses. See Houghton, 870 P.2d  at 1057. We cannot agree. On the face of 
things, the Engineers demonstrate the information can be used to audit WTD's, 
the FHA's, and contractors' efforts to comply both with federal requirements for 
a prevailing wage rate, as well as with Wyoming's parallel statutory 
requirements. For that reason alone, any countervailing interest of the workers 
in their privacy is outweighed by a public interest. Houghton, 870 P.2d  at 
1052-54.

[¶18]   WTD contends release of the 
information sought by the Engineers would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 
privacy. We are not convinced by WTD's argument13 or authority that such an interest 
is at stake here. The argument relies almost entirely on construction of a 
federal exemption (see n. 4) which is not found in Wyoming's public records act. 
However, we are persuaded the record makes no suggestion that affected employees 
have complained about the potential of such a release, nor would it be likely 
such complaints, if made, could overcome the mandate of the public records act 
to release information. This is especially so because the workers have already 
released their names and addresses to the contractor, who has in turn released 
them to the State of Wyoming, who has in turn released that information to the 
federal government. There is no indication in the record that if the Engineers 
did contact the workers at their homes that such would be significantly 
disruptive of their privacy. The record simply does not provide any basis for 
denying release of the contested information. Houghton, 870 P.2d  at 1056; 
Laborers Int'l Union v. City of Aberdeen, 31 Wn. App. 445, 642 P.2d 418, 421 
(1982); and see generally Andrea G. Nadel, Annotation, What Constitutes Personal 
Matters Exempt from Disclosure by Invasion of Privacy Exemption under State 
Freedom of Information Act, 26 A.L.R. 4th 666, esp. § 4 (1983).

[¶19]   The order of the district court is 
affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1           
Although the brief of the Contractors' Association is more narrowly drawn 
than that of WTD, for the sake of convenience and succinctness we will refer 
only to WTD in the text of the opinion since the interests of the Association 
are essentially the same as those of WTD.

2           
40 U.S.C.S. § 276a (1994) and 29 C.F.R. § 3.3(b) (1995); compliance with 
the Copeland Act is also required. 40 U.S.C.S. § 276c (1994) and 29 C.F.R. § 3.1 
(1995).

3           
Also see Wyoming's Prevailing Wage Rate Act, WYO. STAT. §§ 27-4-401 - 413 
(1991 and Supp. 1995).

4           
This position is based on the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 
U.S.C.S. § 552(b)(6) (1989), (unwarranted invasion of personal 
privacy).

5           
WTD would also expunge social security numbers and deductions, but no 
issue is raised with regard to those items of information.

6           
WYO. STAT. § 16-4-201 - 205 (1990 and Supp. 1995).

7           
To be specific, WTD contends: "[B]y releasing personal information on 
certified payrolls, the Wyoming Transportation Department is in possible 
violation of U.S. Department of Labor standards." Given the standard of review 
we employ when reviewing questions under the public records act, such 
speculative argument is not of assistance in resolving the issue.

8           
WESTLAW search of all state statutes, "sociological data."

9           
The Colorado act appears to prohibit release of sociological data 
concerning certain applicants, but not their applications, names or addresses. 
It prohibits release of students' names and addresses, except to the U.S. 
Military (a variety of policies are available for this exception).

10         As 
examples of information that does come within its meaning, the statutory note 
includes: age, sex, nativity, trade or occupation, cause and duration of 
unemployment, marital status, number of children. The real thrust of the statute 
is that such information may not be compiled and then released in a form so as 
to identify the individual or family which the information concerns because that 
information is private.

11         
WESTLAW search of allstates and allfeds directories produced 19 state 
cases which used it and 26 federal cases.

12         See 
U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 
773, 109 S. Ct. 1468, 103 L. Ed. 2d 774 (1989); U.S. Dept. of Defense v. Federal 
Labor Relations Authority, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 1006, 127 L. Ed. 2d 325 
(1994).

13         See 
e.g., Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 984 F.2d 370, 
372 (10th Cir. 1993).