|
No. 133819
| Michigan Federation of Teachers and School |
|
Mark H. Cousens |
| Related Personnel, AFT, AFL-CIO, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Washtenaw - Connors, T.) |
|
|
| University of Michigan, |
|
Debra A. Kowich |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Attorney General Michael A. Cox's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Press Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan State University, the Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University, Central Michigan University Board of Trustees, Saginaw Valley State University, Michigan Technological University, the Board of Trustees of Oakland University, the Board of Control of Northern Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University Board of Trustees, Wayne State University Board of Trustees, and Ferris State University's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Wayne County's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
The Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel, AFT, AFL-CIO submitted a Freedom of Information Act (MCL 15.231 et seq.) to the University of Michigan. The FOIA request sought each university employee’s name, job title, job family, department name, work address, work telephone number, 2003 wages, compensation rate, employment record number, and employee ID, as well as the home address and telephone number. The university provided most of the requested information, but did not turn over the home addresses and telephone numbers of employees who had withheld permission to have this information published in the university faculty and staff directory. The university asserted FOIA’s privacy exemption, MCL 15.243(1)(a), as a basis for its nondisclosure. MCL 15.243(1)(a) exempts from disclosure information “of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.” The union objected and sued under FOIA to obtain the information, in addition to sanctions against the university. The parties filed cross-motions for summary disposition. In support of its motion, the university submitted affidavits from various university employees describing their reasons for wishing their telephone numbers and addresses to remain undisclosed. One employee reported that she was the repeated victim of domestic violence from an estranged ex-spouse. Another reported that her three adopted children were the victims of molestation by their biological father, who vowed to find his children upon his release from prison. Other employees reported that their safety had been threatened as a result of their work for the university. Still other employees explained that they paid for unlisted numbers and had asked that their home information not be publicly disclosed. The trial court ruled in favor of the university, reasoning that the information was “of a personal nature” that would not “contribute [ ] significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.” The union appealed. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals relied on Bradley v Saranac Board of Education, 455 Mich 285, 294 (1997), which defined “information of a personal nature” as meaning information that reveals intimate or embarrassing details of an individual’s private life. Under Bradley, the standard is to be evaluated in terms of the “customs, mores, or ordinary views of the community.” The appeals court reasoned that the home addresses and telephone numbers were not items of personal information under FOIA because they did not reveal “intimate or embarrassing details of an individual’s private life.” However, the university persuasively argued that the disclosing the information could expose some employees to threats, harm and peril, the panel said. Therefore, the Court of Appeals charged the trial court on remand to determine whether any of the university’s employees demonstrated “truly exceptional circumstances” to exempt information regarding their home addresses and telephone numbers from FOIA disclosure. One judge concurred in the decision, but asked the Supreme Court to consider revisiting Bradley’s definition of “information of a personal nature.” The concurring judge also stated that, even if the Bradley standard were not modified, it would be appropriate to consider whether the advent of the national Do-Not-Call Registry, as well as the rise of identity theft, should have an impact on whether the disclosure of home addresses and phone numbers is inconsistent with the “customs, mores, or ordinary views of the community.” The university appeals.
Top of Page
|
