Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

In determining which documents are relevant for production in an in camera review, custodians of records should be mindful of the Supreme Court’s holding that, “...if the custodian has any doubt whether a particular document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial court.” On the other hand, in the overwhelming majority of cases, documents regarding marital status, family member identification, employment application information, letters of recommendation, promotion records and health records, need not be produced for an in camera review, unless the same are relevant to the particular case pending before the court. Where any particular Pitchess motion presents a “close call” on the issue of document relevancy, it is recommended that the custodian consult with appropriate legal counsel as an aide in making the relevancy determination. b. Exclusions The confidentiality sections of the Penal Code Section 832.7 and Evidence Code Sections 1043 and 1045 do not restrict access by the California Attorney General or a grand jury in the course of an investigation of an officer’s or policy agency’s conduct. 386 Penal Code section 832.7 does not create a privacy interest on the part of individual witnesses or officers in tapes and transcripts of witnesses interviewed during police commission’s investigations of employment discrimination charges against a police officer. 387 When a former police officer testifies against a police department in a lawsuit, the police department which employed the officer may allow its lawyer to review the former police officer’s personnel file in order to evaluate its use during cross-examination and as impeachment at trial without complying with the Pitchess procedural requirements and without violating the officer’s right to privacy. 388 In addition, the names, employing departments, and hiring and termination dates of peace officers maintained by the California Commission on Peace Officer Training and standards do not constitute confidential peace officer personnel records under Penal Code Sections 832.7 and 832.8. 389 Similarly, “well-established norms of California public policy and American public employment exclude public employee names and salaries from the zone of financial privacy protection.” Thus, the names and salaries of public employees earning $100,000 per year or more, including peace officers, are not protected from disclosure as personnel records under Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8. 390 D. E MPLOYER ’ S OBLIGATION TO PREVENT IDENTITY THEFT The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act require that all “creditors” (including local government agencies that defer payments for goods or services) have policies and procedures in place to help prevent identity theft.

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 117