Opinion ID: 2829245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of the Industrial Foundation Test

Text: The Industrial Foundation test holds that information “is excepted from mandatory disclosure . . . as information deemed confidential by law if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Indus. Found. , 540 S.W.2d at 685 . I first analyze whether birth date information is highly intimate or embarrassing information, the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person. The Court in Industrial Foundation analyzed information contained in workers’ compensation files to determine whether it satisfied this element of the tort. The Court reasoned that some information would satisfy the “highly intimate” standard, including: a claim for injuries arising from a sexual assault of a female clerk following an armed robbery; a claim on behalf of illegitimate children for benefits following their father’s death; a teacher’s claim for expenses of a pregnancy resulting from the failure of a contraceptive device; claims for psychiatric treatment of mental disorders following work related injuries; claims for injuries to sexual organs, and for injuries stemming from an attempted suicide; and claims of disability caused by physical or mental abuse by co-employees or supervisors. Id . at 683. This is the deeply personal, highly intimate type of information the tort is meant to protect from publicity. The Second Restatement of Torts also gives examples of information that rises to the level of highly intimate or embarrassing. “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.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt . b (1977). Contrasting this private information, the Restatement notes, “there is no liability for giving publicity to facts about the plaintiff’s life that are matters of public record, such as the date of his birth , the fact of his marriage, [or] his military record . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, interpreting Texas law, came to the same conclusion: However, none of these items of information — middle initial, age, street address, job title — can be characterized under Texas law as “private” and “highly intimate or embarrassing facts about a person’s private affairs, such that its publication would be highly objectionable to a person of ordinary sensibilities.” Texas invasion of privacy law in this respect has been guided by Prosser, Law of Torts § 117 (4th ed. 1971) and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D. Prosser, supra , states “‘[t]he plaintiff cannot complain when . . . publicity is given to matters such as the date of his birth .’” Id . § 117 at 858 . . . . The Restatement (Second) of Torts . . . is to the same effect . . . “[t]here is no liability for giving publicity to facts about the plaintiff’s life . . . such as the date of his birth . . . . ” Johnson v. Sawyer , 47 F.3d 716, 732–33 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Indus. Found. , 540 S.W.2d at 682–84) (further citations omitted) (emphasis added). If disclosure of birth dates is held to violate the public disclosure of private facts tort, the consequence to tort law would be to potentially allow recovery for damages whenever someone publicizes information as “highly intimate” as a birth date. The public disclosure tort was not meant to protect such information from publicity. See Johnson , 47 F.3d at 732; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt . b (1977). The Comptroller argues that the combination of birth date information and other identifying information, such as a name, rises to the level of “highly intimate” justifying exclusion from disclosure. She argues that because birth date information, in conjunction with this other information, can be used to access sensitive information, such as a social security number, birth date information itself is sensitive information. The argument casts too broad a net and misses the essence of the inquiry. How otherwise public information is used after disclosure does not guide the analysis of whether it is confidential and excepted from disclosure under section 552.101. See Indus. Found. 540 S.W.2d at 692 ( Reavley , J., dissenting) (“I read the Legislature to be concerned with confidentiality entirely apart from the manner of use of the information.”). If that analysis were determinative, much of the defined public information would be withheld because of a possibility or likelihood of it being used itself or in conjunction with other public information for inappropriate or illegal purposes. For example, that a person’s business address, race, and gender could be used by a stalker to identify and commit an assault at the person’s workplace, does not convert the work address into confidential information. In addition, the public disclosure tort focuses on the character of the information itself. Is it “highly intimate” such that its mere publication would be objectionable to a reasonable person? See Indus. Found. 540 S.W.2d at 683. How the information is used once it is made public, while of obvious concern to policy-makers who balance the risks in writing statutes, does not drive the analysis in interpreting section 552.101. Accordingly, public employees’ birth dates do not constitute highly intimate or embarrassing facts the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person. This information is also of legitimate public concern. The News contends that birth date information ensures accuracy in identifying subjects of newspaper articles, and the information has also been used to determine that criminal offenders have been employed by some public school systems. The Comptroller has offered no response to this contention. In any event, birth date information does not satisfy the first requirement of the public disclosure analysis, that the information contain highly intimate or embarrassing facts the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person. I would conclude that the disclosure of birth date information does not violate the public disclosure tort, and birth date information is not confidential under section 552.101 of the PIA.