Newspapers May Publish Names And Salaries Of Public Employees Earning $100,000 Per Year

International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc.) (2007) ______ Cal.App.4th _______; (07 C.D.O.S. 10097, filed Aug. 27, 2007)

On August 27, 2007, the California Supreme Court filed two important decisions concerning the privacy rights of California public employees.  Pubic employees came out on the short end of both decisions.  In one of those cases the Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc. submitted a demand to the City of Oakland (under the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6250, et seq.) for the names, job titles, and gross salaries of all City employees who earned $100,000 or more in fiscal year 2003-2004.  The demand included both those whose base salary exceeded $100,000, and those whose base salary was less than $100,000, but earned more than that because of overtime.  Although the City was willing to disclose salary and overtime information linked to job classifications, it refused to provide salary information linked to individual employees.  When the City refused, the newspaper publishing company filed a petition for writ of mandate.  Two unions intervened.  The Superior Court granted the petition, both as to non-peace officers and peace officers, who claimed that they were entitled to a different result under Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 which cloak personnel records of peace officers with confidentiality.  The City chose not to appeal, and the unions unsuccessfully petitioned the Court of Appeal.  However, the Supreme court granted review.

The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice George.  The Chief Justice noted that as a result of an initiative in 2004, the principle of “openness in government” is enshrined in the California Constitution, article 1, section 3, subd.(b)(1).  While paying lip service to the concerns of public employees (“To the extent some public employees may expect their salaries to remain a private matter, that expectation is not a reasonable one. . .”)  The Court held that since both sides agreed that the records which were sought met the definition of public records, unless one of the statutory exceptions applied, the records must be disclosed.  The party seeking to withhold public records bears the burden of demonstrating that an exception applied.  The Court assumed for the sake of argument that the records were personnel records, nonetheless the disclosure was not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.  The Court applied a balancing test under Government Code section 6254, subd.(c).  In this case the Court determined that the public’s interest in disclosure was not outweighed by the individual’s interest in personal privacy.  In a footnote the Court distinguished cases which held that private sector employees’ salaries which were paid with public funds were privileged from disclosure on the ground that those cases did not involve public employees.  The Court noted that under open meeting laws although personnel matters may be discussed in private, salary matters must be discussed in public by government agencies.

One of the unions argued for the privacy of this information under article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution urging that publication of this information could lead to exploitation of public employees by commercial interests.  That interest in privacy was outweighed by the public’s interest in knowing the amount of salary paid to public employees.  The Court was also dismissive of the arguments offered on behalf of peace officers.  “Personnel records” as defined under Penal Code section 832.8 did not include salary information since it was not in fact “personal”.  The Court rejected the argument that peace officers have any greater privacy interest in the amount of their salaries than that possessed by other public employees.

It must be noted, that although this case involved employees who made $100,000 or more during the year in question, the rationale could be applied to any public employee.