Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

Brutsch v. City of Los Angeles 296 The Court of Appeal refused to permit police officers access to interviewers’ rating sheets which contained the interviewers’ comments recorded during the oral interview portion of a promotional examination. The Court recognized the City’s legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of the interviewers whom had been assured that their comments would be confidential and rejected plaintiff’s suggestion that the City redact the names of the interviewers from the rating sheets to allow disclosure. The Court held that plaintiff’s proposed solution was inadequate for three reasons: (1) since the comments are in the interviewers’ own handwriting, plaintiffs may recognize the writing; (2) the possibility that the wording of some of the comments would in and of itself provide a clue to the drafter’s identity; and lastly, (3) some interviewers made their comments on the examination forms themselves presumably in reliance on the promised confidentiality. 297

Furthermore, the California Supreme Court has held that Government Code section 3303, subdivision (f), of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act does not grant a peace officer, subject to an internal affairs investigation, a right to investigative reports and complaints prior to being interrogated. 298

3. C HECKLIST : E MPLOYEE P ERSONNEL F ILE I NSPECTION P ROCEDURE

Employers may want to consider the following checklist in implementing an employee personnel file inspection procedure:

 Require the employee to provide a written request for access to the file.

 Review the file to determine whether any of the statutory exemptions apply (e.g., letters of reference regarding county employee, criminal investigations). If so, remove such documents from the file.  Determine whether any of the documents in the file are from individuals who have been given an assurance of confidentiality. If so, remove these documents from the file.

 Enter a notation indicating date and time of employee’s inspection.

Some states expressly require employees to submit a written form requesting access to their personnel files. The purpose of such a requirement is to identify the requesting individual and to avoid disclosure to ineligible individuals. Even though California does not expressly provide for this requirement, employers should maintain records of requests to inspect personnel files together with detailed information concerning the inspection. For example, the records custodian should record the time the inspection occurred and identify which documents were reviewed and copied. The custodian may also wish to obtain from the requesting employee a signed statement that the inspection occurred. Detailed records concerning the inspection of personnel files will provide evidence of an employer’s compliance with the access statutes.

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2021 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 96