FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Carl J. Liano,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-178
Joseph Ganim, Bridgeport
Mayor; Kathy Testani, Worker's Compensation
Benefits Coordinator; H.
James Haselkamp, Bridgeport Labor Director;
and Mark Anastasi, Bridgeport
City Attorney
Respondents March 13, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on December 6, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondents
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. For purpose
of hearing, docket #FIC 95-177, Anthony E. DeNiro v. Joseph Ganim, Bridgeport
Mayor, Kathy Testani, Worker's Compensation Benefits Coordinator, H. James
Haselkamp, Bridgeport Labor Director, and Mark Anastasi, Bridgeport City
Attorney, was consolidated with the above-captioned matter. The February 8, 1995 letter and list at
issue were reviewed in camera following the hearing into this matter.
After consideration of the entire record, the
following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
of complaint dated May 24, 1995 and filed with the Commission on May 26, 1995,
the complainant appealed alleging that the respondents denied him access to an
unaltered copy of the following records:
a.
the February 8, 1995 letter from respondent Testani to Frank Lipsitz of
Total Employee Care, Inc.; and
b.
the list (accompanying the February 8, 1995 letter, described in a.),
above, of persons receiving disability compensation for heart and hypertension
under the Workers' Compensation Act (hereinafter "Workers' Compensation
Act" or "the Act") and 7-433c, G.S., and not receiving 1099
forms.
Docket #FIC 95-178 Page
2
The complainant requested
that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the official or employee who
failed to comply with his request.
3. It is
found that by letter dated February 8, 1995 respondent Testani informed Total
Employee Care, Inc., that:
Attached is the list of employees
that you provided for verification of injury type. The highlighted employees have Workers' Compensation claims and
should not be taxed: therefore, should not receive a 1099 form.
4. The
February 8, 1995 letter, described in paragraph 3, above, also named employees
who should not receive a 1099 form. In
addition, the letter noted that "All the other employees on the list
should receive a 1099 form, this also includes Mr. A. DeNiro."
5. It is
found that by letters dated May 10, 1995 the complainant requested that the
respondents Testani and Haselkamp provide him with an unaltered copy of the
February 8, 1995 letter and the attached list of employees, described in
paragraphs 3 and 4, above (hereinafter "February letter" and
"list").
6. It is
found that by letters dated May 11, 1995, the complainant informed the
respondents Mayor and City Attorney of his May 10, 1995 requests to respondents
Testani and Haselkamp.
7. It is
found that by letter dated June 12, 1995 respondent Haselkamp sent notice to
the employees named in the February letter, informing them that an FOI request
for "attachments containing your name and the amount of 1099 income
associated with your heart and hypertension claim" was made. The June 12, 1995 letter requested a
response as to whether they objected to the disclosure of the information.
8. It is
found that by letter dated June 19, 1995 respondent Haselkamp provided the
complainant with a redacted copy of a letter dated February 16, 1995 which
letter is similar to the February letter, described in paragraphs 3 and 4,
above, with the exception of the date.
9. It is
found that by letter dated July 12, 1995 respondent Haselkamp sent notice to
all the employees named in the February letter and on the list, described in
paragraphs 3 and 4, above, indicating that an FOI request for "attachments
containing your name and the amount of 1099 income associated with your heart
and hypertension claim" was made.
The July 12, 1995 letter requested a response as to whether they
objected to the disclosure of the information.
Haselkamp also informed the complainant, by letter dated July 10, 1995
that he planned to
Docket #FIC 95-178 Page
3
send the July 12, 1995 notice
because he was concerned about the privacy interests of the employees. Haselkamp also at that time provided the
complainant with a redacted copy of the August letter.
10. It is
found that by letter dated July 19, 1995 the complainant informed respondent
Haselkamp that he did not request "the amount of 1099 income any one
receives associated with heart and hypertension claims."
11. It is
found that by letter dated July 24, 1995 respondent Haselkamp provided the
complainant with a redacted copy of the February letter and list, redactions
having been made with respect to the names of persons who objected to
disclosure.
12. The
respondents contend that disclosure of the February letter and list would be an
invasion of the employees' personal privacy.
They also contend that disclosure would divulge medical condition or
disease and confidential tax information exempt pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
12112 and 26 U.S.C. 6103, respectively.
13. It is
found that the respondent received objections to disclosure from some employees
following their receipt of the notices described in paragraphs 7 and 9, above.
14. It is
found that the February letter and list are maintained by respondents Testani
and Haselkamp and not the respondents Mayor and City Attorney.
15. It is
found that the February letter and list are public records within the meaning
of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
16. It is
found that the list contains the names of employees receiving Workers' Compensation
and 7-433c, G.S. disability benefits and the amount received. It is found that the February letter
indicates that certain employees on the list should not receive a 1099 form.
17. Section
7-433c, G.S., requires municipal employers to pay benefits to policemen and
firemen disabled or who have died as a result of hypertension or heart disease.
18. It is
found that neither the February letter nor the list contain information which
is exempt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12112, 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
19. It is
found that the complainant is not seeking information concerning the medical
condition of the employees receiving Workers' Compensation and 7-433c, G.S.,
nor the amount of benefits or confidential tax information.
Docket #FIC 95-178 Page
4
20. Further,
it is found that the names of employees as contained in the February letter and
on the list do not constitute a medical file, which if disclosed, would
constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of
1-19(b)(2), G.S.
21. However,
even if the names in the February letter and contained on the list, described
in paragraph 20, above, were to be considered a medical file, G.S., disclosure
of such names would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
22. Further
it is found that the names of employees receiving Workers' Compensation and
7-433c, G.S, benefits from the city of Bridgeport pertain to matters of
legitimate public concern.
23. It is
therefore concluded that the February 8, 1995 letter and list are not exempt
from disclosure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12112, 26 U.S.C. 6103 and
1-19(b)(2), G.S.
24. It is
further concluded that 1-19(a), G.S., requires that the respondents
provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of the February letter and the
attached list of persons receiving Worker's Compensation and 7-433c, G.S.
benefits.
25. The
Commission in its discretion denies to impose a civil penalty in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondent Haselkamp shall within seven days of the receipt of the notice of
the final decision in this matter provide the complainant with an unredacted
copy of the February 8, 1995 letter and the list of persons receiving Worker's
Compensation and 7-433c, G.S. benefits.
The respondent may redact from the list the amount of benefit being
received by each recipient prior to disclosure to the complainant in light of
the complainant's modified request, as described in paragraph 19 of the
findings, above.
2. The
complaint is dismissed as against the Mayor and City Attorney.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 13, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-178 Page
5
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c),
G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING
ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR
THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED
CASE ARE:
Carl J. Liano
29 Centerview Drive
Shelton, CT 06484
Joseph Ganim, Bridgeport
Mayor: Kathy Testani, Workers'Compensation Benefits Coordinator; J. James
Haselkamp, Bridgeport Labor Director; and Mark Anastasi, Bridgeport City
Attorney
c/o John Barton, Esq.
Associate City Attorney
202 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission