Opinion ID: 1248766
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hooper's May 28, 1997 letter to all sixth-grade parents

Text: The district court initially held this letter did not violate the MGDPA in its summary judgment order. However, after all of the evidence had been submitted, which included the introduction of evidence related to Hooper's May 28, 1997 letter over appellant's objections, the court reversed its previous ruling and held that the letter violated the MGDPA by stating the stories from children are numerous and sometimes alarming regarding the characteristics of the instructional program they received. The court of appeals held that this was err, reasoning that the letter did not identify respondent by name and any implicit reference to her was incidental. Navarre, 633 N.W.2d at 51. Under the MGDPA, the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee is public personnel data. Minn.Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(a)(4) (emphasis added). The fact that any complaints or charges is plural indicates that the number of complaints or charges is public data. Therefore, disclosing the fact that the stories were numerous did not violate the MGDPA. We must next consider whether the letter's indication that these stories were sometimes alarming discloses more than the existence and status of any complaints. Personnel data within the meaning of the MGDPA is defined as data on individuals   , which in turn means: [A]ll government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data   . Minn.Stat. §§ 13.43, subd. 1 (2000), 13.02, subd. 5 (2000). See also Demers, 468 N.W.2d 71, 73 (Minn.1991) (stating that personnel data are data that identify the employee who is the subject of the data). The court of appeals concluded that respondent was not the subject of and was not identified in Hooper's letter and any implicit reference to her was incidental to the subject of the letter. Therefore, the court held that information in the letter was not personnel data. Navarre, 633 N.W.2d at 51. However, the court failed to recognize that in the beginning of Hooper's May 28, 1997 letter, immediately after indicating that Hillside's sixth-grade staff and principal had met with others to discuss the sixth-grade communications program, Hooper wrote: We recognize that parents have a    concern about    the Communications curriculum, and then wrote the sentence at issue. This letter clearly indicated that it pertained to the sixth-grade communications curriculum. Respondent was the sixth-grade communications teacher. Therefore, respondent was readily identifiable as the subject of the sometimes alarming stories regarding the instructional program the children received. The use of the phrase sometimes alarming in describing the stories goes beyond disclosing the existence and status of complaints by commenting on the nature of the complaints still under investigation and was disseminated prior to any final disposition of disciplinary action. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' holding in part and hold that the district court did not err by instructing the jury that the public characterization of the complaints as sometimes alarming violated the MGDPA.