In the case of State ex rel. Louisville Edn. Assn., OEA/NEA v. Louisville City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2017-Ohio- 5564, an Ohio appellate court upheld the redaction of “all boxes which would have revealed deductions for tax sheltered accounts, charitable contributions, and the amount of taxes withheld” by a public school district in response to a public records request for the W2s of all administrative employees. Louisville at ¶ 4.
In reaching its conclusion, the Ohio appellate court “recognized that the Public Records Act envisions an opportunity for the public office to examine records prior to release in order to redact exempt materials appropriately.” Louisville at ¶ 7. And the appellate court emphasized the importance of examining personnel files prior to disclosure.
Public offices are warned to not produce personnel files without conducting more than a cursory review to simply redact social security numbers. As the appellate court explained, personnel files require a more careful review in order to ensure that the public office redacts sensitive personal information about employees that does not actually document the organization or function of the agency. In this case, the appellate court explicitly found that “[t]he redacted information [at question in the W2s] does not document the organization or function of the agency, therefore, it is not public information subject to disclosure.” Louisville at ¶ 9.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.