Opinion ID: 1723461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: SUBSECTION 13(1)(m)

Text: LASA argues that subsection 13(1)(m) exempts their personnel records. The following information is exempt under subsection 13(1)(m): Medical, counseling, or psychological facts or evaluations concerning an individual if the individual's identity would be revealed by a disclosure of those facts or evaluation.[ [25] ] The plaintiffs assert that their performance evaluations are counseling evaluations for purposes of this exemption. Neither this Court nor the Court of Appeals has addressed whether employment-related personnel evaluations are counseling evaluations. However, the Attorney General has addressed this issue, concluding that the context within which the word counseling appears indicates the Legislature's intent that this apply only where there is a professional relationship between counselor and counselee, not where there is an employment relationship.[ [26] ] We agree with the Attorney General's analysis that the Legislature's use of the term counseling does not appear to include an employment relationship. Further, we acknowledge that the apparent purpose of this exemption is to prevent the disclosure of a person's identity through the release of medical, counseling, or psychological records. The exemption's concern is not with the release of the underlying information, only with the release of the patient's identity. In particular, we note that the exemption prevents the disclosure of certain records only if disclosure would reveal the patient's identity. If the patient's identity were already public information, the exemption would appear inapplicable. In the present case, the parties seeking the plaintiffs' records requested them by name, and not by job title. Thus, this exemption would not apply even if the plaintiffs' records were counseling evaluations because the plaintiffs' identities were already known. We conclude that subsection 13(1)(m) does not exempt the plaintiffs' employment records.