Court Opinion

ID: 9615653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:39:25.422205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:49.939827
License: Public Domain

*600ROBERTS, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. In an attempt to advance the “full disclosure policy of the Public Records Act,” 297 Or at 590, the majority defines the phrase “investigatory information” exclusively of whatever information may be contained in the complaint. I do not read the exemption so narrowly. It is significant both that the legislature singled out claims of unlawful employment practices for protection from disclosure and that nondisclosure under this particular exemption is temporary, not permanent, ORS 192.500(l)(h). I am persuaded that, by means of this exemption, the legislature sought to protect the integrity of the Commissioner’s conciliation and settlement process, while at the same time ensuring disclosure as soon as that process would not be threatened.
An unlawful employment practice complaint includes the names of the parties as well as the details of the claimed unlawful employment practice. Under the majority’s analysis all of this must be disclosed upon request. The Commissioner argues forcefully that her effectiveness in enforcing the employment laws will be reduced because premature publicity could cause an employer to avoid conciliation and settlement for fear of appearing to admit culpability. The majority holds that information an investigation may later uncover is exempted. However, this shield may come too late. Disclosure of the complaint may already have impeded the goal the exemption was designed to serve.
Campbell, J., joins in this dissent.