April 2015
Practice Group(s):
Commercial Disputes
Public Finance
Naming Names: Washington Supreme Court Holds
That Public Employers Must Disclose the Names of
Employees Being Investigated for Workplace
Misconduct
By John T. Drake, Laura D. McAloon, Brian M. Werst and Thad O’Sullivan
On April 2, 2015, the Washington Supreme Court held that public employees under
investigation for workplace misconduct cannot prevent their identities from being disclosed in
response to a request for public records. The decision, Predisik v. Spokane School District
No. 8, explains that while public employees may oppose disclosure of specific allegations on
privacy grounds, their status as public servants precludes them from asserting a privacy
interest to prevent disclosure of the fact that they are being investigated. This decision
provides key guidance to public employers subject to the broad public disclosure mandate of
the Washington Public Records Act (“PRA”).
The plaintiffs, two public school employees, were separately accused of misconduct. Both
were placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the school district’s internal
investigations. While these investigations were under way, a local news station filed a PRA
request for “information on all district employees currently on paid/non-paid administrative
leave.” A second media outlet requested a copy of the letter that advised one of the
employees that he had been placed on administrative leave.
The employees sued the school district to prevent disclosure of their identities in response to
the PRA requests. The trial court sided with the employees, ruling that their identities were
exempt from disclosure under the PRA’s “personal information” and “investigative records”
exemptions. Based on that ruling, the school district disclosed responsive records with the
employees’ names redacted. None of these records revealed the precise nature of the
allegations being investigated.
The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the employees had a protected right
to privacy in their identities “because the misconduct alleged in the record[s] has not yet
been substantiated.” Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, 179 Wn. App. 513, 520 (2014).
The court reasoned that before any finding of wrongdoing had been made, the risk that the
employees would be subjected to “gossip and ridicule” outweighed the public’s interest in
learning their identities. Id.
The Washington Supreme Court reversed in a 5–4 decision. The Court emphasized that
public records are presumptively subject to disclosure and that statutory exemptions must be
narrowly construed. It further emphasized that courts must pay particular attention to the
public policy favoring disclosure of public records when deciding whether a privacy-related
exemption applies—even when disclosure might “cause inconvenience or embarrassment to
public officials or others.” RCW 42.56.550(3).
Naming Names: Washington Supreme Court Holds That Public Employers
Must Disclose the Names of Employees Being Investigated for Workplace
Misconduct
Applying those principles, the Court concluded that the employees had no right to keep their
identities private. In so holding, the Court drew a critical distinction between the existence of
the investigations themselves and the nature of the conduct being investigated. While public
employees may have a legitimate interest in keeping specific allegations private, they cannot
claim a protectable interest in the fact that they are being investigated. Given that public
employees are paid with public funds, “the investigation is merely a status of their public
employment.” The Court thus remanded the case with directions that the records be
produced without redactions.
The holding in Predisik, while narrow, provides needed guidance to public employers. When
presented with a request for public records pertaining to an internal investigation, the
employer can disclose records that do nothing more than reveal the employee’s identity.
Authors:
John T. Drake
[email protected]
509.241.1548
Laura D. McAloon
[email protected]
509.241.1532
Brian M. Werst
[email protected]
509.241.1590
Thad O’Sullivan
[email protected]
509.241.1510
Anchorage Austin Beijing Berlin Boston Brisbane Brussels Charleston Charlotte Chicago Dallas Doha Dubai Fort Worth Frankfurt
Harrisburg Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Melbourne Miami Milan Moscow Newark New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris
Perth Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh Research Triangle Park San Francisco São Paulo Seattle Seoul Shanghai Singapore Spokane
Sydney Taipei Tokyo Warsaw Washington, D.C. Wilmington
K&L Gates comprises more than 2,000 lawyers globally who practice in fully integrated offices located on five
continents. The firm represents leading multinational corporations, growth and middle-market companies, capital
markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational
institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations,
practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.
This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in
regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
© 2015 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.
2