NOTICE: SLIP OPINION

(not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the 

written opinions that are originally filed by the court. 

A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions 

can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an 

order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential 

purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits 

(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the 

opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court 

decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An 

opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of 

the court.

The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it 

has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official 

text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes 

of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the 

language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of 

charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports. 

For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential 

(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see 

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
Fl LE 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

ANTHONY J. PREDISIK and 

CHRISTOPHER KATKE, 

Petitioners, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ) 

81, ) 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

__________________________ ) 

No. 90129-5 

EnBanc 

Filed APR 0 2 2015 

Yu, J.-This case involves two public school employees who are on paid 

administrative leave while their employer investigates allegations of misconduct. 

We must decide if public records that reveal these investigations are occurringbut do not describe the allegations being investigated-implicate the employees' 

privacy rights under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW. We hold 

they do not. Because no exemption applies to withhold the records from public 

inspection, we reverse and remand with instructions to order the records at issue 

disclosed in their entirety without redaction. 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Anthony J. Predisik and Christopher Katke are longtime employees of the 

Spokane School District No. 81 (District). In late 2011 and early 2012, the District 

began to investigate Predisik and Katke after individuals made separate, unrelated 

allegations against the two employees. The substance behind those allegations is 

not in the record, but the District's investigations are apparently ongoing and 

entering their fourth year. The District placed Predisik and Katke on 

administrative leave and has paid salaries to both employees while it investigates. 

In the spring of 2012, two media outlets submitted public records requests to 

the District. One request sought the "administrative leave letter given to Anthony 

Predisik, a Shadle Park High School counselor." Clerk's Papers at 50. The other 

request asked for "information on all district employees currently on paid/non-paid 

administrative leave." Id. at 331. The requests returned three public records 

relevant to this dispute. 

The first record is Predisik's "administrative leave letter," a short letter 

informing Predisik that he has been placed on administrative leave "pending 

completion of the District's investigation into allegations of inappropriate 

interactions with a former student." Ex. P-1. It also tells Predisik he is banned 

from district property and from talking with students about the matter during the 

2 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

investigation. The letter does not describe the allegations in any further detail and 

does not name Predisik's accuser. 

The second and third records are spreadsheets that document the amount of 

leave pay Predisik and Katke had accumulated through April2012. Exs. P-2, P-3. 

The spreadsheets, one for each employee, contain columns for the employee's 

name, the date of pay, the hours paid, the rate of pay, and a position code. Id. The 

final column indicates the reason for leave, which is described generically for both 

Predisik and Katke as "[a]llegations currently under investigation." Id. Similar to 

the leave letter, the spreadsheets provide no further detail about the allegations or 

the accusers. 

Predisik and Katke separately sued the District to enjoin disclosure of the 

leave letter and spreadsheets, alleging each record is exempt under the "[p ]ersonal 

information" and "investigative" record exemptions ofRCW 42.56.230(3) and 

42.56.240(1 ). The District opposed the injunction and argued the leave letter and 

spreadsheets should be disclosed. 1 The trial court consolidated the two cases, and 

the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Citing our opinion in 

Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 164 Wn.2d 199, 189 P.3d 

139 (2008), the trial court found that Predisik's and Katke's identities, but not the 

1 The two media entities that requested the records elected not to join this action, but the District 

adequately represents the public's interest in full disclosure. 

3 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

records themselves, were exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.230(3). The 

judge ordered all three records disclosed with Predisik's and Katke's names 

redacted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, 

179 Wn. App. 513,319 P.3d 801 (2014). 

We granted review to clarify when the PRA will recognize a right to privacy 

in the identity of a public employee who is the subject of an open investigation by 

his or her public employer. Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, 180 Wn.2d 

1021, 328 P.3d 903 (2014). 

ANALYSIS 

The PRA requires that agencies "shall make available for public inspection 

and copying all public records," subject only to a handful of statutory exemptions. 

RCW 42.56.070(1); see also Progressive Animal Welfare Soc 'y v. Univ. of Wash., 

125 Wn.2d 243,260, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) (PAWS II). The PRA ensures the 

sovereignty of the people and the accountability of the governmental agencies that 

serve them by providing full access to information concerning the conduct of 

government. PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 251. To effectuate that policy, we start with 

the presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure. Agencies can 

withhold a record only if it falls within one of the PRA's specific, limited 

exemptions. RCW 42.56.070(1). These exemptions are narrow, and we apply 

them in favor of partial disclosure where possible since "the PRA's purpose of 

4 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

open government remains paramount." Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. 

Auth., 177 Wn.2d 417,432,327 P.3d 600 (2013); see also RCW 42.56.070(1) 

(requiring that agencies redact records only "[t]o the extent required to prevent an 

unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by [the PRA]" and 

produce the remainder of the record). Similarly, the PRA reminds us "that free and 

open examination of public records is in the public interest, even though such 

examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or 

others." RCW 42.56.550(3). 

Predisik and Katke argue that two of the PRA' s exemptions independently 

justify withholding the leave letter and spreadsheets from disclosure. First, the 

employees assert the records contain personal information, the disclosure of which 

would violate their rights to privacy. RCW 42.56.230(3). Second, they argue the 

records constitute investigative records that are essential to law enforcement. RCW 

42.56.240(1). We apply each exemption in turn. 

A. Personal information exemption 

Predisik and Katke rely principally on RCW 42.56.230(3), which exempts 

from disclosure "[p]ersonal information in f1les maintained for employees ... of 

any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to 

privacy." Application of this exemption involves three separate questions: (1) 

whether the records contain personal information, (2) whether the employees have 

5 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

a privacy interest in that personal information, and (3) whether disclosure of that 

personal information would violate their right to privacy. Bellevue John Does, 164 

Wn.2d at 210. The first question is not in dispute. The leave letter and 

spreadsheets, which identify Predisik and Katke by name, contain "'personal 

information' [i.e., the employees' identities] because they relate to particular 

people." !d. at 211. 

The existence of "personal information" in a public record is necessary to 

the exemption, but it is not sufficient alone to withhold the record. Employees 

must also demonstrate that they have a right to privacy in personal information 

contained in a record and if such a right exists, that disclosure would violate it. 

The personal information at issue here is Predisik's and Katke's identities when 

they are contained in public records disclosing that the District is investigating 

allegations of misconduct. So we next must decide whether the PRA grants public 

employees under investigation a right to privacy in their identities. 

The statute's text offers little guidance to answer this question. Although the 

PRA expressly provides "the test for determining when the right to privacy is 

violated[, it] does not explicitly identify when the right to privacy exists." 

Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 412-13, 259 

P.3d 190 (2011) (footnote omitted) (citing Bellevue John Does, 164 Wn.2d at 212). 

We previously used principles of tort law to fill this definitional void and define 

6 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

the contours of the PRA's privacy right. In Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 

135, 580 P.2d 246 (1978), we concluded that the "right of privacy," as it is used in 

the PRA, means "what it meant at common law," and we adopted the definition in 

the Restatement (Second) o.f'Torts § 652D (1977) (§ 652D). 

Therefore, a person has a right to privacy under the PRA only in '"matter[s] 

concerning the private life."' Id. at 135 (quoting§ 652D). To explain how that 

standard is applied in practice, we looked to theRestatement's summary of the 

right to privacy: 

"Every individual has some phases of his life and his activities 

and some facts about himself that he does not expose to the public eye, 

but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals only to his family or to 

close personal friends. Sexual relations, for example, are normally 

entirely private matters, as are family quarrels, many unpleasant or 

disgraceful or humiliating illnesses, most intimate personal letters, most 

details of a man's life in his home, and some of his past history that he 

would rather forget." 

I d. at 136 (quoting § 652D cmt. b, at 386). This comment "illustrates what nature 

ofj'acts are protected by this right to privacy," id. (emphasis added), and taken in 

context makes clear that the PRA will not protect everything that an individual 

would prefer to keep private. The PRA's "right to privacy" is narrower. 

Individuals have a privacy right under the PRA only in the types of "private" facts 

fairly comparable to those shown in the Restatement. 

Using the Restatement as a rubric, we conclude that the PRA does not 

recognize a right of privacy in the mere fact that a public employer is investigating 

7 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

an employee. In so holding, we distinguish the investigation itself from the 

employee's conduct giving rise to that investigation. This difference, though 

subtle, is very important to the Restatement's privacy interest analysis. A public 

employer's investigation is certainly not a private matter: it arises exclusively from 

the employee's public employment. The investigation is simply an administrative 

process. It is not akin to a '"family quarrel[]'" or a "'humiliating illness[,]"' nor 

does it touch on the employee's "'life [at] home."' Id. (quoting§ 652D cmt. b, at 

386). To the contrary, the investigation relates to a part of the employee's lifehis or her profession-that is freely exposed to the public. A public employer's 

investigation is an act of the government, not a closely held private matter that 

gives rise to a privacy right under the PRA. 

We again contrast the employer's investigation, in which there is no privacy 

interest, with the allegations the employer is investigating. We acknowledge that 

such allegations may encompass some "past history that [the employee] would 

rather forget" and could come within that example or others in the Restatement that 

would implicate a privacy right under the PRA. But the mere fact there is an open 

investigation into allegations of misconduct is not, by itself: a reason to withhold a 

record from disclosure. Agencies and courts must review each responsive record 

and discern ti·om its four corners whether the record discloses factual allegations 

that are truly of a private nature, using the Restatement as a guide. Though there is 

8 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

an inherent degree of fact-finding in this analysis, a record-specific inquiry is the 

only way to adhere to the PRA's mandate that exemptions be construed narrowly. 

RCW 42.56.030. 

Applying this rule, we conclude that neither the leave letter nor the 

spreadsheets implicate a privacy right under the PRA. Those records disclose only 

that the District has opened an investigation and placed Predisik and Katke on 

leave during its pendency; the records do not disclose the factual allegations 

underlying that investigation. From these three records, the public learns only 

matters related to Predisik's and Katke's status as public employees and nothing 

about their personal lives. For the reasons we explain above, this information does 

not trigger a privacy interest under the PRA. 

Predisik and Katke argue our decision in Bellevue John Does requires we 

find a privacy interest here. We held in that case that teachers have a right to 

privacy in their identities in records related to unsubstantiated allegations, since in 

those instances "the fact of the allegation ... does not bear on the teacher's 

performance or activities as a public servant." 164 Wn.2d at 215. But as we 

explained, the existence of a privacy right under the PRA depends on the types of 

facts disclosed and is not amenable to a bright-line rule. 

We do not find Bellevue John Does dispositive when applied to the records 

in this case and the limited, public nature of the facts those records disclose. 

9 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Again, a public employer's investigation is a governmental act and a consequence 

of employment with the government. Unlike the records at issue in Bellevue John 

Does, the leave letter and spreadsheets do not disclose any salacious facts that one 

might consider a private matter. Indeed, the records contain no specific allegations 

of misconduct at all. It makes no difference if the allegations here are eventually 

substantiated because the records do not describe them. 

We do not read Bellevue John Does to create a sweeping rule that exempts 

an employee's identity from disclosure any time it is mentioned in a record with 

some tangential relation to misconduct allegations. A rule that broad would justify 

withholding, or at least redacting, nearly every record created during the course of 

the District's investigation. Even Bellevue John Does recognizes the PRA entitles 

the public to "documents concerning the nature of the allegations and reports 

related to the investigation and its outcome." Id. at 221. 

Because we hold that no right of privacy exists in the leave letter or 

spreadsheets, we need not decide if disclosure of those records would violate that 

right. See RCW 42.56.050 (providing the test for determining when disclosure 

violates the right to privacy if such a right exists). We observe, however, that the 

public has a legitimate concern in the identities of public employees who are the 

subject of investigations. The PRA is meant to engender the people's trust in their 

government. The recent unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, is an extreme example of 

10 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

how that trust is eroded when the public suspects the government is withholding 

information to protect its own. See, e.g., Tanzina Vega, Timothy Williams & Erik 

Eckholm, Emotions Flare in Missouri Amid Police Statements, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 

15, 2014), available at www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/darren-wilson-identifiedas-officer-in-fatal-shooting-in-ferguson-missouri.html. 

But secrecy can breed suspicion in more subtle ways, too. For example, if 

we accepted Predisik's and Katke's position, the public would never learn about an 

investigation unless and until the underlying allegations are substantiated at some 

point in the future. There would be no opportunity for the public to discover the 

District's ongoing three-year investigation, much less question the effectiveness of 

what some might consider an awfully long process. Government cannot be held 

accountable for actions it shields from the public's eye. 

Public employees are paid with public tax dollars and, by definition, are 

servants of and accountable to the public. The people have a right to know who 

their public employees are and when those employees are not performing their 

duties. In sum, we hold there is no privacy right under the PRA in the mere fact 

that a public employer is investigating a public employee or in the employee's use 

of administrative leave. Both are simply functions of the government. Without 

such a privacy right, RCW 42.56.230(3) does not apply to exempt the leave letter 

or spreadsheets from disclosure. 

11 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

B. Investigative record exemption 

Predisik and Katke also argue that the investigative records exemption 

requires that the District withhold the three records. RCW 42.56.240(1 ). A record 

falling within this exemption must, among other requisites, "be essential to law 

enforcement or essential to the protection of privacy." Koenig v. Thurston County, 

175 Wn.2d 837, 843,287 P.3d 523 (2012) (citing Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State 

Patrol, 109 Wn.2d 712, 728, 748 P.2d 597 (1988)). The three records here are 

neither. 

The leave letter and spreadsheets are not essential to law enforcement. Our 

decision in Brouillet v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wn.2d 788, 795, 791 P.2d 526 

(1990), is dispositive. There we considered whether the superintendent of public 

instruction (SPI), who actually wields disciplinary authority over teaching 

credentials, performed law enforcement functions. We concluded the SPI could 

not rely on the investigative records exemption to withhold records because "it 

does not enforce law," and we rejected the agency's "attempt to characterize its 

supervision of its employees as law enforcement" activity under the exemption. !d. 

at 795-96. The District has even less investigative and disciplinary authority than 

the SPI, and its records similarly are not exempted under RCW 42.56.240(1 ). 

Nor are the leave letter and spreadsheets essential to the protection of 

privacy. The PRA is consistent in its definition of "privacy," which is the same 

12 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

definition we announced in Hearst Corp. and applied above. RCW 42.56.050; 

LAWS OF 1987, ch. 403, § 1. As discussed in detail earlier, Predisik and Katke 

have no right to privacy in records disclosing only the fact that they are the 

subjects of an open investigation. 

CONCLUSION 

Public employees have no privacy right in the fact that they are being 

investigated by their public employer. The investigation is merely a status of their 

public employment, not an intimate detail of their personal lives, and without such 

a privacy right, RCW 42.56.230(3) and .240(1) are inapplicable. We reverse the 

Court of Appeals and remand with instructions to order the records at issue 

disclosed in their entirety without redaction. 

13 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

WE CONCUR: 

;.-:..., 

14 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

No. 90129-5 

FAIRHURST, J. (dissenting)-! dissent because Anthony J. Predisik and 

Christopher Katke (Employees) have a right to privacy in their identities. The 

Employees' right to privacy is violated if the records at issue are disclosed. However, 

such records can be redacted to protect the Employees' privacy interest. To reach a 

contrary result, the majority deviates from our precedent and creates a new rule. 

ANALYSIS 

The primary issue in this case is whether under the Public Records Act (PRA), 

chapter 42.56 RCW, the identities of the Employees are exempt from disclosure. 

The majority's holding that the Employees' identities are not exempt from disclosure 

is contrary to our case law. The question presented is resolved by our settled 

jurisprudence. 

We have construed the PRA as "a strongly worded mandate for broad 

disclosure of public records." Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 127, 580 P.2d 

246 (1978). The PRA protects the public's right to be informed of agency decisions. 

1 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

RCW 42.56.030. To fully protect the public's interest, the PRA requires that its 

provisions be construed liberally and its exemptions be construed narrowly. !d. 

Unless a record falls within a specific PRA exemption or other statutory exemption, 

the PRA requires state and local agencies to disclose all public records upon request. 

RCW 42.56.070(1). If a portion of a record should be redacted or remain 

undisclosed, "an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with 

[the PRA] when it makes available or publishes any public record." !d. The agency 

must justify each redaction in writing. !d. 

The Employees argue that two of the PRA's exemptions justify withholding 

the records in this case: (1) the personal information exemption, RCW 42.56.230(3), 

and (2) the investigative records exemption, RCW 42.56.240(1). We disagree with 

the majority's holding regarding the personal information exemption but agree with 

the majority's analysis and decision regarding the investigative records exemption. 

The Personal Information Exemption 

The PRA exempts from disclosure "[p ]ersonal information in files maintained 

for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency to the extent that 

disclosure would violate their right to privacy." RCW 42.56.230(3). To determine 

if records constitute personal information exempt from disclosure, we use a threepart inquiry: ( 1) whether the allegations constitute personal information, (2) whether 

those claiming that the exemption applies have a right to privacy in their identities, 

2 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

and (3) whether disclosure of the personal information would violate their right to 

privacy. Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 164 Wn.2d 199, 

209, 189 P.3d 139 (2008). 

It is undisputed that the leave letter and the spreadsheets that identify the 

Employees by name constitute personal information. See id. at 211 ("The teachers' 

identities are 'clearly personal information' because they relate to particular 

people."); majority at 6. However, personal information is exempt from disclosure 

only to the extent that disclosure would violate the individual's right to privacy. 

Bellevue John Does, 164 Wn.2d at 212. 

The right to privacy is intended to have the same meaning as it was given by 

this court in Hearst. Id. Hearst, 90 Wn.2d at 135-36, defined the "right to privacy" 

by looking to the common law tort of invasion of privacy and adopted the definition 

of "invasion of privacy" set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D 

( 1977). According to the Restatement, '" [ o ]ne who gives publicity to a matter 

concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion 

of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive 

to a reasonable person and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public."' Hearst, 

90 Wn.2d at 135-36 (quoting RESTATEMENT§ 652D). 

3 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

A. The Employees Have a Right to Privacy in Their Identities 

While the above definition describes when the right to privacy is violated, it 

does not define when the right to privacy exists. See Bainbridge Island Police Guild 

v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 412-13, 259 P.3d 190 (2011). We have stated 

that the right to privacy exists '"in matter[s] concerning the private life."' 1 Bellevue 

John Does, 164 Wn.2d at 212 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks 

omitted) (quoting Hearst, 90 Wn.2d at 135). We have also noted that there is a right 

to privacy in unsubstantiated allegations. Morgan v. City of Federal Way, 166 Wn.2d 

747, 756, 213 P.3d 596 (2009) ("Unsubstantiated allegations are exempt from 

disclosure."). 

In Bellevue John Does we found that if "a complaint regarding misconduct 

during the course of public employment is substantiated or results in some sort of 

discipline, an employee does not have a right to privacy in the complaint." 164 

Wn.2d at 215. However, "[a]n unsubstantiated or false accusation of sexual 

misconduct is not an action taken by an employee in the course of performing public 

duties." !d. In Bellevue John Does, public school teachers sought to enjoin their 

respective school districts from releasing their names in response to a public records 

request. !d. at 205. The request was for all records relating to allegations of sexual 

1

The Restatement summarizes the right to privacy in comment b to § 652D, and this 

comment is cited on page 7 of the majority opinion. 

4 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fair hurst, J. (dissenting) 

misconduct by teachers in the prior 10 years. !d. at 206. We held that the teachers 

had a right to privacy in their identities and ordered that the records could be 

disclosed only if the teachers' names were redacted. !d. at 215, 227. We noted that 

the unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct that never resulted in any form 

of discipline were matters concerning the teachers' private lives and were not 

specific instances of misconduct committed while in the course of employment. !d. 

at 215. In our reasoning we noted that "[t]he fact of the allegation, not the underlying 

conduct, does not bear on the teacher's performance or activities as a public servant." 

!d. Moreover, we stated that "[t]he mere fact of the allegation of sexual misconduct 

toward a minor may hold the teacher up to hatred and ridicule in the community, 

without any evidence that such misconduct ever occurred." !d. 

In Morgan, a post-Bellevue John Does decision, we held that the personal 

information exemption did not apply to the records at issue. Morgan, 166 Wn.2d at 

276. In Morgan, the judge argued that a report produced by the investigating attorney 

was exempt from disclosure because it contained unsubstantiated allegations that 

were highly offensive. !d. The report alleged that the judge created a hostile work 

environment by, among other things, angry outbursts and inappropriate genderbased comments. !d. In our reasoning, we first addressed whether the judge's right 

to privacy would be violated if the records were disclosed. We found that the 

allegations against the judge were not as offensive as allegations of sexual 

5 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

misconduct with a minor, like in Bellevue John Does, and would not be highly 

offensive if disclosed. Next, we stated that contrary to the judge's assertions, the 

allegations were not unsubstantiated. ld. The records at issue in Morgan evaluated 

the credibility of each person who made an allegation and found that the allegations 

were likely true. ld. We held that the judge did not have a right to privacy in the 

responsive records. Id. 

Here, the question 1s whether the Employees, who are the subject of 

unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, have a right to privacy in their identities. 

The administrative leave letter informed that Predisik was placed on administrative 

leave "pending completion of the District's investigation into allegations of 

inappropriate interactions with a former student." Ex. P-1. The leave slips indicate 

that the Employees are on leave for "[a]llegations currently under investigation." 

Exs. P-2, P-3. The documents provided no further information about the allegations 

or the accusers. Like Bellevue John Does and unlike Morgan, the allegations in the 

records are unsubstantiated and there is no evidence that the accusations resulted in 

any form of discipline. Because the allegations were unsubstantiated, they do not 

bear on the teachers' performance as public servants and do not inform the public of 

specific instances of misconduct during the course of employment. Therefore, the 

Employees have a right to privacy in their identities. 

6 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

The majority found that because the records did not disclose "salacious facts," 

the records here are not comparable to those examined in Bellevue John Does. 

Majority at 10. The majority set forth a new rule that requires "[a]gencies and courts 

[to] review each responsive record and discern from its four corners whether the 

record discloses factual allegations that are truly of a private nature." !d. at 8. 

Applying this rule, the majority found that the records do not disclose private 

information about the employees because the records related only to the Employees' 

status as public employees. !d. at 9. The majority distinguished the "investigation 

itself from the employee's conduct giving rise to that investigation." Id. at 8. 

According to the majority, the fact that the investigation is occurring is not a private 

matter because it relates to a part of the Employees' lives that are freely exposed to 

the public. !d. 

In reaching its conclusion, the majority disregards the fact that in Bellevue 

John Does we found that unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct are not actions 

taken by public employees during the course of performing public duties. 2 164 

Wn.2d at 215. Therefore, a public employee's identity when disclosed in connection 

with unsubstantiated allegations or evidence of pending investigations is not related 

2

To support its reasoning, the majority seems to rely on principles from the dissent in 

Bellevue John Does. 164 Wn.2d at 234 (Madsen, J., dissenting) (noting that the teachers did not 

have a right to privacy because the allegations of specific instances of misconduct occurred while 

the employees were performing their public duties). 

7 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

to his or her status as a public employee. This principle was derived from past 

precedent such as Cowles Publishing Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wn.2d 712, 725, 748 

P.2d 597 (1988). In Cowles, we noted that the right to privacy is not violated when 

a complaint about a specific instance of misconduct is substantiated, but where an 

investigation is pending, disclosure would result in a more intrusive invasion of 

privacy. The principle was reiterated in Morgan, where we noted that 

unsubstantiated claims of misconduct are exempt from disclosure. 166 Wn.2d at 756. 

B. Disclosure of the Employees' Identities Would Violate Their Right to Privacy 

Finding that the Employees have a right to privacy in their identities in 

connection with unsubstantiated claims of misconduct is not the end of the analysis. 

We next must consider whether the Employees' right to privacy would be violated 

by disclosure. "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." RCW 

42.56.050. 

1. Highly Offensive 

While our cases do not define the term "highly offensive," we have addressed 

whether the disclosure of certain records would be highly offensive in several cases. 

In these cases we have noted that embarrassment alone is not sufficient for a record 

to be considered highly offensive. Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 797, 845 P.2d 

8 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

995 (1993). In Bellevue John Does we found that disclosing the identities of teachers 

accused of sexual misconduct is highly offensive. 164 Wn.2d at 216. Outside the 

context of sexual misconduct allegations, we have held that disclosure of records 

that discuss employee performance but that do not discuss specific instances of 

misconduct, are presumed highly offensive. Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 797. However, 

as noted above, in Morgan we found that specific, substantiated allegations of 

inappropriate behavior and outbursts were not as offensive as allegations of sexual 

misconduct. 166 Wn.2d at 756. 

Here, the allegations were of inappropriate behavior with a former student. 

The spreadsheets also disclosed that both Employees were under investigation for 

allegations of misconduct. The records, like those in Dawson, did not state specific 

instances of misconduct but instead disclosed vague allegations. Unlike the 

allegations in Morgan, the records here did not include facts or credibility findings 

to substantiate the allegation of inappropriate behavior. As the Court of Appeals 

noted, unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, other than sexual misconduct, can 

subject teachers to the same gossip and ridicule without actual evidence of 

wrongdoing. Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, 179 Wn. App. 513, 520, 319 

P.3d 801 (2014) (citing Bellevue John Does, 164 Wn.2d at 220-21). Although the 

allegations against the Employees were not sexual misconduct with a minor, the 

disclosure of one's identity associated with vague allegations and evidence of 

9 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

pending investigations related to one's profession would be highly offensive to a 

reasonable person. 

2. Legitimate Public Concern 

Since disclosure would be highly offensive, we must consider if there is a 

legitimate public concern in the identities of the Employees such that the records 

must be disclosed. The application of this exemption turns on whether the concern 

of the public is legitimate. Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 798. The term "legitimate" in the 

context of the PRA means '"reasonable."' !d. If an allegation is unsubstantiated, the 

matter is not of public concern. Bellevue John Does, 164 Wn.2d at 221. Here, the 

public does not have a legitimate interest in the names of teachers who are under 

investigation for unsubstantiated allegations. 

While there is not a legitimate public concern in the names of the teachers, the 

public does have a legitimate concern in the leave slip and the spreadsheet. As the 

Court of Appeals noted, the public has an interest in seeing that a government agency 

conducts itself fairly and uses funds responsibly. Predisik, 179 Wn. App. at 520. 

In Bellevue John Does, we found that the teachers' names could be redacted 

to protect their privacy interests and such redaction would not harm the public 

oversight of agency conduct. 164 Wn.2d at 221-23 (noting that the identities of those 

accused of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct does not aid in effective 

government oversight by the public). Furthermore, as the Court of Appeals noted, 

10 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fair hurst, J. (dissenting) 

the leave slip and spreadsheets are not highly offensive when the identifying 

information is redacted. Predisik, 179 Wn. App. at 520. Therefore the records should 

be disclosed but with the identities of the teachers redacted. 

The majority notes that there is a legitimate public interest in the identities of 

the Employees. Majority at 10. According to the majority, if we redact or withhold 

the records, the public would never find out about the investigation until the 

allegations were substantiated, and the public has a right to know about employees 

who are not performing their duties. Majority at 11. We generally agree. However, 

we can uphold both the privacy interest of the Employees and the public's interest 

in overseeing government actions by redacting the records. There is no evidence that 

the Employees were not performing their duties. See Bellevue John Does, 164 Wn.2d 

at 217 ("' [T]he public as a rule has no legitimate interest in finding out the names of 

people who have been falsely accused.'" (quoting Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. 

Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 129 Wn. App. 132, 155-57, 120 P.3d 616 (2005))). By 

redacting and releasing the documents, the public could learn of the ongoing 

investigation and question its effectiveness without violating the privacy of the 

Employees. See majority at 11. 

11 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fair hurst, J. (dissenting) 

3. Redaction is Sufficient to Protect the Employees ' Privacy Interest 

According to the Employees, the records in their entirety are exempt under 

the personal information exemption, RCW 42.56.230(3). The Employees contend 

that redaction is not sufficient to protect their privacy interest in their identities 

because the public records request specifically asked for records related to Predisik, 

and therefore the disclosure of records in response to that request necessarily links 

his identity to the material. 

We have rejected similar arguments. See Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 

Wn.2d 173, 183-84, 142 P .3d 162 (2006). In Koenig we held that there is no statutory 

language or case law to support the argument that we should look beyond the record 

at issue to determine whether it is exempt from disclosure. Id. at 183. In Koenig we 

created a rule that agencies apply exemptions based only on the information the 

record discloses on its face without regard for the request. This rule creates a uniform 

disclosure system because it ensures that disclosure will not depend on how the 

request is made, but on the individual record at issue. Id. 

CONCLUSION 

I would affirm the Court of Appeals. The Employees who are the subjects of 

unsubstantiated allegations and pending investigations have a right to privacy in 

their identities. This right is violated if the records at issue are disclosed in their 

entirety to the public. However, if the identities of the Employees are redacted from 

12 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisikv. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

the records, the Employees will not have a right to privacy in the records. Therefore, 

the records should be redacted and released. Because the majority finds that the 

Employees do not have a right to privacy in their identities and holds that the records 

at issue be disclosed in their entirety, I respectfully dissent. 

13 

 	 
	 
   
		

		

Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, No. 90129-5 

Fairhurst, J. (dissenting) 

14