Title: Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Oklahoma
Citation: 2011 OK 68
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: June 28, 2011

Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Oklahoma Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary The Oklahoma Publishing Company (The Oklahoman) and World Publishing Company (Tulsa World) (collectively, Publishers), filed open records requests with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of State Finance (OSF). Both the Oklahoman and Tulsa World sought to release of birth dates of all state employees. In addition, the Tulsa World requested employee identification numbers. The Oklahoma Public Employees Association (OPEA) filed two suits against OPM and OSF requesting declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to bar the release of employees' birth dates. The second suit also sought to bar employee identification numbers from disclosure. The district court consolidated the cases. All parties filed motions for summary judgment. Relying on an opinion of the Oklahoma Attorney General, the trial court sustained OPEA's and OPM's motions. It ordered that the state agencies be given sixty days’ notice to report their decisions on whether disclosure of date of birth requests would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; whether public access could be denied to employee identification numbers; and that legislative staff records were exempt from disclosure under the Oklahoma Open Records Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Oklahoma law already contains a non-exclusive list of examples of information that if released, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of State employees' personal privacy. As guidance, the Court held that where a claim of invasion of privacy is made, courts should use a case-by-case balancing test to determine whether personal information is subject to release. If significant privacy interests are at stake while the public's interest in the disclosed information is minimal, release of that information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . OKLA. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOC. v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 2011 OK 68 Case Number: 108839; No. 108841 Decided: 06/28/2011 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Defendant/Appellee. OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF STATE FINANCE, Defendant/Appellee. and OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellee and, STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Defendant/Appellee and, OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellee and, STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF STATE FINANCE, Defendant/Appellee, v. WORLD PUBLISHING COMPANY and THE OKLAHOMA PUBLISHING COMPANY, Intervenors/Appellants. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY ¶0 The Oklahoma Publishing Company (Oklahoman) and World Publishing Company (Tulsa World) (collectively, publishers), filed open records requests with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of State Finance (OSF). Both the Oklahoman and Tulsa World sought release of birth dates of all state employees. In addition, the Tulsa World requested employee identification numbers. The Oklahoma Public Employees Association (OPEA) filed two suits against OPM and OSF, respectfully. Both petitions requested declaratory judgment and injunctive relief barring the release of employees' birth dates. The second suit also sought to bar employee identification numbers from disclosure. The district court consolidated the causes. All parties filed motions for summary judgment. Relying on an opinion of the Oklahoma Attorney General (AG), the trial court sustained OPEA's and OPM's motions. It ordered that: state agencies be given sixty (60) days notice to report their decisions on whether disclosure of date of birth requests would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy pursuant to AFFIRMED. Kevin R. Donelson, Carole L. Houghton, FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP, BAILEY & TIPPENS, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Oklahoma Public Employees Association, Stephen J. Krise, Oklahoma Office of Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for State ex rel. Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management and Oklahoma Office of State Finance, Michael Minnis, Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, L.L.P., Oklahoma City, OK, and S. Douglas Dodd, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the Oklahoma Publishing Company d/b/a The Oklahoman, J. Schadd Titus, Titus Hillis Reynolds Love Dickman & McCalmon, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for World Publishing Company d/b/a Tulsa World, S. Douglas Dodd, Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, L.L.P. Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Amici Curiae Griffin Television OKC, LLC, Griffin Television Tulsa, LLC, Oklahoma Press Association, Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press, and FOI Oklahoma, Gary J. James, Gary J. James & Associates, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Oklahoma State Troopers Association, Wellon B. Poe, Joseph A. Claro, Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, Thomas E. Prince, Prince Law Office, P.C., Edmond, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae, CompSource Oklahoma, Robert D. Nelon, Jon Epstein, Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden and Nelson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amici Curiae Local TV, LLC d/b/a KFOR-TV (Channel 4) Oklahoma City, Ohio/Oklahoma Hearst Television, Inc. d/b/a KOCO-TV (Channel 5) Oklahoma City; Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. d/b/a KOKH-TV (Channel 25) Oklahoma City, Scripps Media, Inc. d/b/a KJRH-TV (Channel 2) Tulsa, KTUL, LLC d/b/a KTUL-TV (Channel 8) Tulsa, Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters, Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc., Radio Television Digital News Association, Nancy Pellow, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Pro Se. PER CURIUM: ¶1 Although the above styled and numbered causes were consolidated in the trial court, they were appealed under separate numbers. On October 26, 2010, an order issued in case No. 108,841 making the causes companion cases for purposes of the appeal and requiring that separate records be filed. Today, we withdraw our order of October 26th and consolidate the matters for resolution by a single opinion. ¶2 One first impression issue is common to both causes: whether public employees' dates of birth are open records, subject to public disclosure, under the Open Records Act. The second first impression issue, raised only in cause No. 108,841, is whether employee identification numbers are also public records which may be released. Both questions require us to consider whether the information release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion" of Oklahoma's public service, state employees' personal privacy under RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶4 In response to a request by Senator Debbe Leftwich, the AG issued an opinion on December 8, 2009. The opinion provides that: 1) a public body has discretion to determine that disclosing a personnel record indicating the date of birth of the public employee is an unwarranted invasion of the employee's personal privacy under the Open Records Act, ¶6 From July through September, 2010, all parties filed for summary judgment. The trial court sustained the summary judgment motions of OPM and OSF in an order filed on September 21st. It found that: employee identification numbers were not subject to disclosure by any state agency; the Attorney General correctly stated the law regarding the release of state employees' birth dates requiring a balancing test to determine if such a release amounted to an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and utilization of the balancing test did not violate the equal protection clause. The trial court also determined that the records of legislative staff are protected from release by PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS ¶8 Two preliminary issues which must be considered before we may determine the primary questions presented: whether the release of birth dates and employee identification numbers constitutes a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" within the meaning of ¶9 1) Title 52 O.S. Supp. 2005 §24A.7(A)2 contains a non-exclusive list of examples of information, release of which, the Legislature considers to be a clearly unwarranted invasion of State employees' personal privacy. ¶10 The OPEA contends that the birth dates and employee identification numbers of state employees are exempt from disclosure pursuant to ¶11 In determining whether a statute applies to a given set of facts, we focus on legislative intent ¶14 Undoubtedly, the Legislature provided examples of information in ¶15 2) Where a claim is made that disclosure of information under 52 O.S. Supp. 2005 §24A.7(A)(2) would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personnel privacy, application of a case-by-case balancing test is utilized to determine whether the information is subject to release. ¶16 The OPEA and OSF advocate the adoption of a balancing test for determination of whether birth dates and employee identification numbers are subject to release under the Open Records Act. Under such a test, the public body must weigh the employees' interest in non-disclosure against the public's interest in obtaining the information. ¶17 The publishers argue that application of a balancing test to determine whether a public employee's personal information outweighs the public's right to know is inappropriate. They contend that, if such a test is utilized, the news-gathering functions under the First Amendment would greatly overcome only a slight imposition on the personal privacy of public employees. The publishers point to a Court of Criminal Appeals' decision and to a Court of Civil Appeals' opinion providing that no balancing test may be utilized as support for their allegations. Those cases and the publishers' assertions are unconvincing. ¶18 Two Oklahoma cases support the contentions that utilization of a balancing test to determine whether employee birth dates or identification numbers are subject to release under the Open Records Act is inappropriate. Nevertheless, at best, those decisions are persuasive only and do not bind our independent review of the issue. ¶19 Nichols v. Jackson, ¶20 The Criminal Court held that the First Amendment right of access by the press to non-confidential court records precluded wholesale closure of the proceedings or sealing of the records. In reaching this result, provisions of the Open Records Act were considered. Relying on a Court of Civil Appeals' case, State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision v. Migliaccio, ¶21 In the same breath that the Court of Criminal Appeals indicated no balancing test would be allowed, it stated: The Legislature has determined by statute that the public's interest is greater, except where specific statutory exemption is given. . . . However, such statutory provisions are always subject to interpretation to ensure compliance with constitutionally guaranteed rights. [Citations omitted. Emphasis supplied.] Thereafter, in answering the question certified, the Criminal Court made it clear that it had, despite its pronouncement concerning Migliaccio, balanced Nichols' rights to counsel, due process, and fair trial against the public's right to know. The opinion provides in pertinent part: The issues of closure of hearings and the sealing or [sic] records is a question of law, which in each instance is driven by the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The issue cannot be answered in a carte blanche approach and should be addressed on an ongoing basis based upon the current status of the proceedings. In Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside County, ¶22 The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases. ¶24 The AG recommended public bodies utilize a balancing test weighing the public's right to know against the employee's right to privacy in determining whether public employees' birth dates should be released. In analyzing the weight to be given to the Attorney General's opinion, we note that, like opinions of the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals, the writings are considered as persuasive authority. Here, however, the Attorney General's analysis carries more weight in determining the issues before the Court. It does so because the Legislature has not acted since the opinion was promulgated. Undoubtedly, it did not do so because it understood that this Court considers the Legislature's silence as acquiescence or approval of the law as expounded in an Attorney General opinion. ¶25 The United States Supreme Court has recognized the privacy interest in keeping personal facts away from the public eye. It has also acknowledged that, in some instances, the duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures is rooted in the Constitution. ¶26 The Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) contains almost identical language to Oklahoma's Open Records Act providing that "files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" may not be released for public scrutiny. In considering the federal act's language, the United States Supreme Court has determined that such statutory language requires the implementation of a balancing test where the individual's right to privacy is weighed against the public's right to know. ¶27 A number of other federal and state courts considering statutory language similar to that found in ¶28 We find the analysis of the Supreme Court and other jurisdictions with statutory language similar to that found in 52 O.S. Supp. 2005 §24A.7(A)(2) persuasive. Therefore, we align ourselves with those courts and with the reasoning of the Attorney General and determine that where a claim is made that disclosure of information under 52 O.S. Supp. 2005 §24A.7(2)(2) would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, application of a case-by-case balancing test should be utilized to determine whether personal information is subject to release. ¶29 Under the facts presented, where significant privacy interests are at stake while the public's interest either in employee birth dates or employee identification numbers is minimal, release of such information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under ¶30 The Supreme Court has held that information such as place of birth, date of birth, date of marriage, employment history, and comparable data are protected from disclosure as matters which constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.35 The vast majority of courts considering the issue of whether birth dates should be excluded from public disclosure under statutory language similar to that found in 51 O.S. Supp. 2005 §24A.7(A)(2) and in the FOIA align themselves with the Supreme Court's reasoning and hold that "disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."36 ¶31 Similarly, employee identification numbers, when balanced against the public's right to know, have been determined to be information whose release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.37 Such information has been found to provide little, if any, knowledge to the public which would provide a better understanding of routine day-to-day governmental operations.38 Publication of the numbers has been considered to be highly offensive, because the disclosure could lead to public scrutiny of individuals concerning information unrelated to any governmental operation while constituting impermissible invasions of privacy.39 Furthermore, as has been argued here, public employees' identification numbers may provide unauthorized access to information contained on government computers.40 Finally, utilization of employee identification numbers has been shown to provide additional insight into financial dealings leaving individuals subject to identity theft.41 ¶32 Since September 11, 2001, the ramifications of identity theft have proven much more grave than previously thought. Identity theft, a huge problem in financial fraud and theft cases, now has implications for national security.42 The growing problem of identity theft is facilitated when birth dates are combined with other personal information.43 Simply combining the release of a person's age along with other factors may make the individual vulnerable to those targeting a certain age range for scams.44 With both a name and a birth date, one can obtain information about: an individual's criminal record; arrest record (which may not include disposition of the charges); driving record; state of origin; political party affiliation; social security number; current and past addresses; civil litigation record; liens; property owned; credit history; financial accounts; and quite possibly, information concerning an individual's complete medical and military histories; and insurance and investment portfolio.45 The release of a state employee's name along with an employee identification number may provide access to other exempt personal information.46 These same numbers may provide unauthorized access to information contained on government computers.47 ¶34 Although the publishers disclaim any intention of publishing the birth dates of State employees, they assert that providing the date of birth information is important to their ability to identify one state worker from another. This argument has been considered too "narrow and limited" on the public interest scale to tip the balance of interests in favor of disclosure. CONCLUSION ¶36 Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy. The greatest threat to privacy comes from government in secret. ¶38 In enacting 51 O.S. Supp. 2005 §27A.7(A)(2), the Oklahoma Legislature sought to construct an exemption which would require a balancing of an individual's right of privacy against the preservation of the basic purpose of Oklahoma's Open Records Act. The device adopted to achieve that balance was the limited exemption where privacy was threatened for the clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. ¶39 We determine that the legislative language utilized in COLBERT, V.C.J., WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, REIF, COMBS, GURICH, JJ. - CONCUR TAYLOR, C.J., KAUGER, J. - DISSENT FOOT