WA court protects identities of some teachers

Identities of public school teachers who face unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct can be kept secret to protect the educators' privacy, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The 6-3 ruling partially reversed a state Court of Appeals ruling that those identities must be disclosed under the state's Public Records Act, unless the allegations of misconduct were clearly false.

The Supreme Court's majority, led by Justice Mary Fairhurst, ruled that a teacher's identity should be made public only when alleged sexual misconduct has been substantiated or when that teacher's conduct results in some form of discipline, even if only a reprimand.

But when the allegations are determined to be unsubstantiated, a teacher's identity is exempt from public disclosure laws because "such disclosure would violate the teacher's right to privacy."

"Allegations of such abuse should be thoroughly investigated by school districts and, if the allegations are substantiated, the media may request records containing the identity of the perpetrating teacher," Fairhurst 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.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Barbara Madsen said the ruling could conceal information needed to help determine whether the state's school districts are addressing sexual misconduct allegations, meaning that "predatory teachers may go undetected and unpunished."

"But the most unfortunate consequence, and one that is completely unacceptable, is that if predatory teachers are undetected, children will continue to suffer at their hands," Madsen wrote, joined by Justices Charles Johnson and Richard Sanders.

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.

As part of its research, the paper filed public disclosure requests with 10 school districts seeking copies of all records relating to allegations of teacher sexual misconduct in the previous 10 years.

Several teachers sued to keep the districts from releasing their records, arguing that it violated their right to privacy. The Times became a party in the lawsuit, seeking for the records to be released.

In Thursday's ruling concerning 15 teachers from the Seattle, Bellevue, and Federal Way school districts, the court said the "mere fact of the allegation of sexual misconduct toward a minor may hold the teacher up to hatred and ridicule in the community, without any evidence that such misconduct ever occurred."

The majority also dismissed concerns over schools having inadequate investigations in order to avoid public scrutiny.

"Under our holding, the public can access documents related to the allegations and investigations (subject to redactions), thus maintaining the citizens' ability to inform themselves about school district operations," the court wrote.

The court also said teachers have a right to keep their identities private because the unsubstantiated or false allegations are matters "concerning the teachers' private lives and are not specific incidents of misconduct during the course of employment."

Madsen blasted that contention in her dissent, writing that "the material in a teacher's file relating to allegations of sexual misconduct involving students is not information that is protected by the right of privacy.

"It does not pertain to the intimate details of one's personal and private life but is instead information about alleged specific instances of misconduct occurring in the course of the teacher's performance of his or her public duties - a kind of information that this court has specifically identified as not encompassed by the right of privacy."

The majority also ruled that "letters of direction" or memos sent to teachers to guide or direct their performance are disclosable under the Public Records Act, but that "where a letter simply seeks to guide future conduct, does not mention substantiated misconduct, and a teacher is not disciplined or subject to any restriction, the name and identifying information of the teacher should be redacted."

"This result protects both the public interest in overseeing school districts' responses to allegations (letters of direction give citizens a complete picture of a school district's investigations and accompanying procedures) and the teacher's individual privacy rights," the court wrote.

---

The case is Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, docket number 78603-8.

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court of Washington: http://www.courts.wa.gov