Privacy Issues in the Workplace

deliberative process privilege. In reaching this conclusion, the court analogized the facts of the case to a California Supreme Court case that ruled that releasing copies of a state Governor’s appointment calendars and schedules for a five-year period would compromise the deliberative process. The deliberative process privilege protects from disclosure the substance or direction of judgment and mental processes. 347 The Public Records Act expressly exempts the home addresses and home telephone numbers of all public employees from the definition of a “public record.” 348 The amendment also exempts the disclosure of a public employee’s cell phone number and birthdate from the definition of a public record. 349 In addition, the Public Records Act exempts 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. 350 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. 351

Braun v. City of Taft 352 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held that two letters in an employee’s personnel file which appointed that employee to a certain position and then rescinded it were public records since the letters constituted an employment contract.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. 353 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

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2021 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 107