Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

the above applies to victims of certain crimes committed because of the victim’s race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability or sexual orientation.

Government Code section 6254, subdivisions (f)(1) and (2) of the Public Records Act has been found to be limited to contemporaneous disclosure of individualized arrest information. The Act does not require release of records showing arrests by a law enforcement officer over a ten-year period. 327 In Marken v. Santa Monica Unified School District , 328 the Court of Appeal held that disclosure of a school district's investigation of allegations that teacher sexually harassed student was warranted under California public records act because public interest in knowing how the school district handled such matters outweighed the teacher's privacy rights. The Court stated that a complaint of misconduct which is upheld by the agency or results in discipline must be disclosed. If the complaint is not sustained, it is still subject to disclosure if it is of substantial nature and there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint is well founded. Although the teacher did not occupy a high profile position, that factor is only relevant to determine when accusations of misconduct should be disclosed even if not well founded. The Court ordered the district to disclose the investigation report and the reprimand with the names and personal information of the student and the witnesses redacted. Prior cases involving California Public Records Act requests for personnel records involved more extreme cases where the complaint involved violence and sexual abuse, or a high profile public official. 329 But this case clarifies that if a charge of misconduct results in employee discipline, even minor discipline, the complaint must be disclosed upon request. In certain circumstances, the Court may require the release of the report, even if accused is exonerated for the most part of the allegations, because the investigation is of a high ranking official. In BRV v. Superior Court 330 , although the district superintendent was exonerated of all serious allegations except for those relating to outbursts of anger, the court found that the public’s interest in knowing why the superintendent was exonerated and how the district conducted the investigation outweighed any privacy interests that the superintendent had in the report, although some redactions were permitted to protect the privacy interests of witnesses. Similarly in Caldecott v. Superior Court 331 , the court order disclosure of the district’s response to a hostile work environment complaint by the Executive Director of Human Resources against the district’s superintendent. While the district did not impose discipline and the allegations were not sustained, the complaint involved allegations of wrongdoing against a high ranking public official complaint. The court was unable to conclude that the allegations were so unreliable that they could be anything but false and there was a strong public interest in knowing how the district’s board treated serious allegations of misconduct against a high ranking public official. The court in Caldecott also permitted redactions to protect the privacy rights of third party individuals. However, the Court of Appeal found in Petaluma v. Superior Court of Sonoma County 332 that investigation materials were protected by the attorney-client privilege where an attorney investigator conducted the investigation even though the investigator's role was limited to a

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 103