|Office of the Attorney General - State of Texas
November 6, 2000
Ms. Jill K. Bramlett
Dear Ms. Bramlett:
You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 141011.
The City of DeSoto (the "city"), which you represent, received a request for information related to an investigation of a former employee's sexual harassment claim. You claim that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101, 552.102, 552.103, 552.107, and 552.111 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and have reviewed the submitted information.
The information at issue involves a completed investigation. Section 552.022 of the Government Code makes certain information expressly public, and therefore not subject to discretionary exceptions to disclosure. One such category of expressly public information under section 552.022 is "a completed report, audit, evaluation, or investigation made of, for, or by a governmental body, except as provided by [s]ection 552.108[.]" Gov't Code § 552.022(a)(1). Our office has previously concluded that sections 552.103, 552.107, and 552.111 are discretionary exceptions. See Open Records Decision No. 630 (1994) (section 552.107 is a discretionary exception), 551 (1990) (statutory predecessor to section 552.103 serves only to protect a governmental body's position in litigation, and does not itself make information confidential), 470 (1987) (statutory predecessor to section 552.111 is a discretionary exception). We do not believe that these exceptions "expressly [make] information confidential under other law." Gov't Code § 552.022. Therefore, you may not withhold the submitted information under sections 552.103, 552.107, and 552.111 of the Government Code.
However, some of the requested information is confidential by law, and is, therefore, not subject to release under section 552.022. The city's investigation pertains to allegations of sexual harassment. Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." This section encompasses the common law right to privacy. For information to be protected by common law privacy it must meet the criteria set out in Industrial Foundation v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). The Industrial Foundation court held that information is excepted from disclosure if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the release of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public. 540 S.W.2d at 685.
In Morales v. Ellen, 840 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, writ denied), the court addressed the applicability of the right of common law privacy to the files of a sexual harassment investigation. The investigation files in Ellen contained individual witness statements, an affidavit by the individual accused of the misconduct responding to the allegations, and conclusions of the board of inquiry that conducted the investigation. Ellen, 840 S.W.2d at 525. The court ordered the release of the affidavit of the person under investigation and the conclusions of the board of inquiry, stating that the public's interest was sufficiently served by the disclosure of such documents. Id. In concluding, the Ellen court held that "the public did not possess a legitimate interest in the identities of the individual witnesses, nor the details of their personal statements beyond what is contained in the documents that have been ordered released." Id.
When there is an adequate summary of the investigation, the summary must be released, but the identities of the victims and witnesses must be redacted and their detailed statements must be withheld from disclosure. After a review of the records, we conclude that you must release the August 9, 2000 letter to the city manager regarding the investigation into allegations of sexual harassment, which serves as an adequate summary of the investigation. Normally, the victim's and witnesses' identifying information must be redacted from the summary before its release. Here, however, the summary does not contain any witnesses' names. Moreover, because the requestor is the complainant's attorney, the complainant's identifying information may not be withheld from the requestor on the basis of protecting the complainant's own privacy interests. See Gov't Code § 552.023(a). Thus, you must release the August 9, 2000 letter to the requestor in its entirety. The remaining information must be withheld from disclosure under section 552.101 in conjunction with the common law right to privacy.
This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances.
This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id. § 552.321(a).
If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e).
If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ).
Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to the General Services Commission at 512/475-2497.
If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days of the date of this ruling.
June B. Harden
Ref: ID# 141011
Encl: Marked documents
cc: Ms. Shannon D. Norris
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US