Court: Some teacher records exempt from public

The state Supreme Court ruled today that school districts do not have to disclose the names of teachers who have unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct made against them.

In a 6-3 decision, the court found that releasing the names would violate the privacy exemption of the state's Public Disclosure Act.

School districts still must release records related to unsubstantiated cases so the public can judge how school districts handled allegations of sexual misconduct, the court said. "The identities of the accused teachers will simply be redacted to protect their privacy interests," Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote for the majority.

Names of teachers must be disclosed only in cases where sexual misconduct has been found or some form of discipline has taken place, Fairhurst wrote.

The ruling drew a stinging dissent written by Justice Barbara Madsen, who declared, "It is important to bear in mind that unsubstantiated does not mean untrue."

Madsen said the public will not have access to information necessary to determine whether school districts satisfactorily deal with allegations of sexual misconduct.

"As a consequence, predatory teachers may go undetected and unpunished," Madsen wrote.

The case stems from a 2003 investigative project by The Seattle Times that found 159 coaches in Washington were fired or reprimanded for sexual misconduct, ranging from harassment to rape.

The Times report found that school districts often failed to investigate complaints against coaches, and didn't report them to law enforcement or the state education office.

While researching the series, The Times filed public-disclosure requests with Seattle, Bellevue, Federal Way and seven other school districts for records relating to allegations of teacher sexual misconduct in the past 10 years.

The Times argued that regardless of the outcome of an investigation, the names of teachers alleged to have committed sexual misconduct was of legitimate public interest.

The newspaper's request was challenged by 37 teachers.

A King County Superior Court judge found that the districts must only disclose the names of teachers whose alleged misconduct was substantiated, resulted in discipline or if a district's investigation was inadequate.

A state appeals court overturned most of the decision, ruling that districts could only withhold records relating to teacher sexual misconduct when the allegation was "patently false."

In today's ruling, the majority said, "Making a distinction between 'unsubstantiated' and 'patently false' is vague and impractical."

The appeals court provided little guidance on what should be deemed false as opposed to unsubstantiated, the court said.

"When an allegation is unsubstantiated, the teacher's identity is not a matter of legitimate public concern," Fairhurst wrote.

The adequacy of an investigation should not affect a teacher's right to privacy, because the accused has no control over the investigation, she added.

Madsen, in her dissent, wrote that teachers do not have a right of privacy because allegations of sexual misconduct fall within their public duties. The allegations do not involve intimate details of their private lives, as required by law, she wrote.

Madsen said the court's ruling will allow school districts to manipulate investigations to avoid disclosure of teacher names.

"A school district can effectively control whether an accused teacher's identity must be released by reaching an agreement with the teacher exchanging resignation for silence," Madsen wrote.

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander joined the majority, along with Justices Susan Owens, James Johnson, and Bobbe Bridge. Justice Tom Chambers also signed the majority opinion, but wrote that he agreed "in result only," with no further comment.

Madsen's dissent was joined by a Justices Charles Johnson and Richard Sanders.

Toby Nixon, president of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, blasted the decision in a written statement.

"This is yet another example of exemptions to public records disclosure being created by the courts rather than by the legislature," Nixon said. "School districts often hide evidence of patterns of misbehavior by teachers, coaches, and staff to avoid lawsuits. It's one thing to expunge allegations shown to be false from a teacher's record, but we know from sad experience that where there's smoke there's usually fire — and now parents will have a harder time becoming aware of continuing patterns of accusations."

As part of the ruling, the majority also found that school districts do not have to release the names of teachers who received letters of direction, or guidance, when the letter doesn't identify an incident of substantiated misconduct and no discipline or restriction is imposed.

Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.