1. 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).
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).
April 2015
Practice Group(s):
Commercial Disputes
Public Finance](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/f7f9783b-0e8e-4492-b1ba-146379864390-150623170850-lva1-app6891/85/Predisik-v-Spokane-Sch-Dist-client-alert-1-320.jpg)
