Court: No release of teacher names in unproven sexual misconduct

July 31, 12:49 PMWashington Law ExaminerMichael Reitz

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Washington Law Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The Supreme Court of Washington ruled today that school districts cannot release the identities or records of teachers who are subjects of unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct. Six justices said a teacher's right to privacy trumps any public oversight interest, while three dissenting justices said the ruling ignores clear precedents and ignores the safety of children.

In 2002, the Seattle Times filed document requests with several school districts, asking for all records relating to allegations of teacher sexual misconduct over the last 10 years. The school districts notified 55 current and former teachers that their records were subject to disclosure. Thirty-seven teachers filed a lawsuit to prevent the districts from releasing their records, arguing the disclosure violated their right to privacy. At trial, the school districts were ordered to disclose the identities of teachers whose misconduct was substantiated, resulted in discipline, or if the investigation was inadequate. The court decided the identities of 15 of the plaintiffs should be sealed, while the names of the remaining 22 teachers should be released to the public.

Eventually the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington. Under the state’s Public Records Act, government agencies are required to disclose all public records upon request, unless the record falls within a specific exemption. The Act exempts “personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy.” The “right to privacy” is violated if disclosure of the information: (1) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Whether or not allegations are proven, wrote the Supreme Court, “It is undisputed that disclosure of the identity of a teacher accused of sexual misconduct is highly offensive to a reasonable person.” The court went on to say:

An unsubstantiated or false accusation of sexual misconduct is not an action taken by an employee in the course of performing public duties.... The fact of the allegation, not the underlying conduct, does not bear on the teacher’s performance or activities as a public servant. The mere fact of the allegation of sexual misconduct toward a minor may hold the teacher up to hatred and ridicule in the community, without any evidence that such misconduct ever occurred. The fact that a teacher is accused of sexual misconduct is a “matter concerning the private life” within the Hearst definition of the scope of the right to privacy. Thus, we hold the teachers have a right to privacy in their identities because the unsubstantiated or false allegations are matters concerning the teachers’ private lives and are not specific incidents of misconduct during the course of employment.

The Seattle Times argued that the public has a legitimate concern in monitoring investigations of sexual misconduct, and the identify of the accused is important to the effectiveness of the public oversight. The court rejected this argument. “When an allegation is unsubstantiated, the teacher’s identity is not a matter of legitimate public concern. In essence, disclosure of the identities of teachers who are the subject of unsubstantiated allegations serves no interest other than gossip and sensation.”

Thus, we hold that the public lacks a legitimate interest in the identities of teachers who are the subjects of unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct because the teachers’ identities do not aid in effective government oversight by the public and the teachers’ right to privacy does not depend on the quality of the school districts’ investigations.

Three justices filed a dissenting opinion. “It is important to bear in mind,” they wrote, ”that unsubstantiated does not mean untrue. A 2004 report prepared for the United States Department of Education attests to the fact that sexual misconduct by educators abusing children in the public schools, including the public schools in Washington State, is an extremely serious and inadequately addressed problem.” These justices pointed out that more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade.

But because school districts often do not adequately investigate, allegations of such misconduct are incorrectly recorded as unsubstantiated. Under the majority’s holding, the public in Washington will not have access to information necessary for determining whether the State’s school districts satisfactorily address allegations of teacher sexual misconduct. As a consequence, predatory teachers may go undetected and unpunished. But the most unfortunate consequence, and one that is completely unacceptable, is that if predatory teachers are undetected, children will continue to suffer at their hands.

The dissenting justices said the court’s ruling ignored clear case law about the right to privacy. They argued that the right to privacy protects the intimate details of one’s private life. But instances of misconduct while on the job, they said, are not private, intimate, or personal details. “They are matters with which the public has a right to concern itself.”

...reports of allegations of sexual misconduct against children by their teachers, including the teachers’ identities, must be disclosed whether the sexual misconduct is substantiated or not. In holding that only substantiated reports of sexual misconduct require disclosure of teachers’ identities, the majority fails to follow the PRA and frustrates the enormously important goal of protecting children from predators.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Fairhurst, and signed by Chief Justice Alexander and Justices Tom Chambers, Susan Owens, James Johnson, and Bobbe Bridge.

The dissent was written by Justice Barbara Madsen, and signed by Justices Charles Johnson and Richard Sanders.

Public records disputes in school districts are especially explosive. In December 2007 the state supreme court ruled that the Spokane School District had acted properly by refusing to disclose investigative documents after a student suffered a fatal allergic reaction.