Privacy Issues in the Workplace

process. The deliberative process privilege protects from disclosure the substance or direction of judgment and mental processes. 345

Effective January 2017, the Legislature amended the Public Records Act to expressly exempt the home addresses and home telephone numbers of all public employees from the definition of a “public record.” 346 The amendment also exempts the disclosure of a public employee’s cell phone number and birthdate from the definition of a public record. 347 In addition, effective January 2017, the Legislature also amended the Public Records Act to exempt from disclosure the identification number, alphanumeric character, or other unique identifying code that an agency uses to identify a vendor or contractor, or an affiliate of a vendor or contractor, unless the number, character, or code is used in a public bidding or an audit involving that agency. 348 The bill is intended to balance the public’s right to access relevant information about contractors and vendors with the need to prevent misuse of the identification information to defraud the agency. b. Employment Contracts Section 6254.8 also provides that employment contracts between a public employer and a public official/employee are public records and are not exempt from disclosure. However, the California Court of Appeal clarified that documents referenced in but not made a part of the contract and not otherwise required to be disclosed are not subject to public disclosure. 349

Braun v. City of Taft 350 The court held that two letters in an employee’s personnel file which appointed that employee to a certain position and then rescinded it were public records since the letters constituted an employment contract. The Court also noted that salary information was public information and suggested that home addresses and phone numbers, birth date, social security and credit union numbers, although personal, were not in any way embarrassing. The implication was that the public may be entitled to such information. The Court in Braun also stated that Section 6524(c) cannot be interpreted as exempting an entire file from disclosure where only a portion of the file contains documents whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Moreover, the fact that a public record may contain some confidential information does not justify withholding the entire document. Versaci v. Superior Court The court held that documents referenced in but not made a part of the contract are not subject to public disclosure. 351 Dr. Sherrill Amador was hired by the Palomar Community College District to be its Superintendent and President under a four-year contract. One paragraph in the contract stated that Dr. Amador would receive an annual written evaluation that would be based on her overall performance and “mutually agreed upon goals and objectives established each year.” On an annual basis, in closed session, Dr. Amador and the board mutually established her personal performance goals for the academic year.

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 104