By Joel Van Parys
While a California court’s decision addresses personnel information for police officers in particular, all employers should be taking steps to safeguard and protect confidential employee information. The case is a reminder that releasing private personnel information about employees is a big decision that may involve risk for the employer—even if the information has been made public in another way.
 |
In March 2012, two members of the Pasadena Police Department shot an unarmed teenager. A number of investigations followed, and the two officers testified in the ensuing litigation about the events surrounding the shooting.
Additionally, the city of Pasadena hired a group to independently investigate the shooting as a way to review police department policies. After the independent investigation was completed, the teenager’s family and the Los Angeles Times, among other groups, sought to have the report produced under the California Public Records Act.
The officers, through the Pasadena Police Officers Association, sought an injunction to prevent the city from producing the report. Their central argument against turning over at least parts of the report was that their private employment information was included in it.
The trial court denied the officers’ request to keep the report private but found that substantial parts of it should be redacted because it contained personnel records. On appeal, the court considered whether the whole report should be kept secret or whether all or some of the sensitive information shouldn’t be disclosed because it included personnel information.
Read full details of the case.