FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Robert J. Fortier, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-519 |
|
Personnel Director, Town of East |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 14, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 19, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
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 §1-200(1), G.S., [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].
2. It is found that on or about November 15, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent personnel director provide him with the job applications for the candidates who applied for the position of town clerk.
3. It is found that on or about November 16, 1999, the respondent personnel director provided the complainant with a copy of the resumes of the applicants; however, certain redactions were made to delete information that could personally identify such applicants.
4. By letter dated November 18, 1999 and filed on November 22, 1999, the complainant, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the unredacted job applications.
5. It is found that the respondents maintain the requested unredacted job applications and such records consist of resumes and cover letters.
6. Sec. 1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
7. It is concluded that the resumes and cover letters are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
8. The unredacted resumes and cover letters were submitted to the Commission and an in camera inspection was conducted.
9. With respect to the resumes, it is found that the information redacted, with the exception of the information redacted from the “Professional Employment” section of in camera document #1, consists only of personally identifiable information. It is also found that the details of the applicants’ qualifications for the job, contained on the resumes, have been otherwise made available to the complainant.
10. With respect to the cover letters, it is found that the complainant was not provided with a copy of such cover letters. It is also found that the cover letters contain personally identifiable information about the applicant.
11. In keeping with Commission precedent, with respect to unsuccessful candidates who apply for positions, it is concluded that the personally identifiable information contained on both the resumes and the cover letters, is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.], because to disclose such information would constitute an invasion of the privacy of such unsuccessful applicants.
12. Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.], in relevant part, provides for the nondisclosure of:
personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
13. The Supreme Court set forth the test for the §1-210(b)(2), G.S., [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.], exemption in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993). Specifically, it must be established that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files. Second, it must be established that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, two elements must be met: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
14. It is found that the redacted information constitutes "personnel” and “similar" files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.]
15. It is found that the redacted information, with the exception of the information redacted from the “Professional Employment” section of in camera document #1, does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern within the meaning of Perkins, supra. Rather, it is found that the legitimate matter of public concern has already been disclosed, in that the qualifications of the applicants have been provided to the complainant.
16. It is also found, that the redacted information, with the exception of the information redacted from the “Professional Employment” section of in camera document #1, would be highly offensive to a reasonable person if disclosed, within the meaning of Perkins, supra.
17. It is therefore, concluded that the redacted information, with the exception of the information redacted from the “Professional Employment” section of in camera document #1, is permissively exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.], and that, therefore, the respondents did not violate the FOI Act when they failed to provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of the resumes.
18. It is further concluded that the complainant’s request for applications, includes both the resumes and cover letters submitted to the respondents during the application process, and therefore, the complainant is entitled to a copy of the cover letters, with redactions to each applicant’s personally identifiable information.
19. In light of the conclusion reached in paragraph 17 above, concerning the redacted information, it is unnecessary to address the respondents’ further claims of exemption in reliance upon §§1-200(7), 1-213(b)(2) and 1-231(a), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(7), 1-19b(b)(2) and 1-21g(a), G.S., respectively].
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. With respect to the personally identifiable information redacted from the resumes by the respondents, the complaint is dismissed. However, forthwith the respondents shall provide the complainant with a) the information redacted from the “Professional Employment” section of in camera document #1, except the name of the organization with which the applicant is presently employed, and b) a copy of the applicants’ cover letters, with personally identifiable information redacted, without charge.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
June 14, 2000.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Robert J. Fortier
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
Personnel Director, Town of East Hartford; and Mayor, Town of East Hartford
c/o Atty.
Jose R. Ramirez
740 Main
Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour