Privacy Issues in the Workplace

of the victim’s parents if the victim is a minor. This section was amended in 1991 to provide that 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. In Fredericks v. Superior Court of San Diego County 353 , the court refused to apply a 60-day limitation for accessing service call records under Government Code section 6254(f). In the case, a Public Records Act request was made for all “complaints and/or request for assistance” relating to any burglary and identity theft in San Diego for the preceding six-month period. The request would require the department to redact a large number of Calls for Service reports, at a substantial cost of lost time in work days to complete the response to the request. In response, the City sought to limit the request to a 60-day time period and to recover more than its direct costs of duplication. The appellate court found that a 60-day limitation could not be read into the act for production of the reports. However, the court could apply a balancing test for the production of the requested information that could take into account the expense, inconvenience and work load burden of segregating exempt from non-exempt information and redacting documents. The court could also set a time limitation if the balancing of the public interest factors supported one. The case was then remanded for the trial court to determine whether greater disclosures were warranted and to condition, if appropriate, any additional disclosures upon an additional imposition of fees and costs over the direct costs of duplication. In Marken v. Santa Monica Unified School District , 354 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. 355 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 356 , 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 357 , the court order disclosure of the district’s response to

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 106