Washington Appellate Court Rules Newspaper Has Right to Publish Names of Teachers Accused of Sexual Misconduct
In Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue School District #405, the Washington Court of Appeal (Division 1) has granted the Seattle Times’ 2002 request for the names of those teachers accused of sexual misconduct, pursuant to the state’s Public Records Act. Although the school district concluded after an investigation that some of the teachers had been falsely accused, the paper argued that the public still had an interest in knowing the names of the teachers. The teachers, however, argued that their privacy would be invaded if their names were published since they had been exonerated, and they sued to prevent release of their names. According to the appellate court, “The privacy exemption in the Public Records Act permits withholding the teacher’s identity only if the
accusation of misconduct is patently false.”
The trial court concluded that “that teacher identities were a matter of legitimate public concern ‘when the investigation of the allegations is inadequate, the allegations are deemed substantiated, or the employee is disciplined with what amounts to more than a letter of direction.’1 Using
this test, the court ultimately determined that 15 of the original plaintiffs (‘prevailing John Does’) were entitled to the protection of the privacy exemption. On April 25, 2003, the court ordered the districts to release the names and identifying information concerning the other 22 teachers. Three of these teachers (‘appellant John Does’) appeal the order of disclosure. The Times cross-appeals, seeking release of identifying information for the 15 prevailing John Does. Because the trial court’s
rulings on matters essential to our decision were made on the basis of the documentary record rather than live testimony, our review is de novo.”
While the appellate court listened with sympathy to the teachers’ argument that release of such information is likely to lead to uproar in employer-employee relations, as well as increased litigation, should negative performance evaluations result, “we are not persuaded that
the negative impact of increased grievance litigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure articulated in Brouillet.”
As to the allegations of sexual misconduct and the school district’s subsequent investigations, the appellate court ruled that only in cases where the district had determined that the allegations were completely false could the identities be withheld. It made a careful distinction between those cases, and cases where the investigations determined simply that misconduct had simply not be “substantiated”, and pointed out that the trial court had confused the two. “The problem
with the trial court’s use of the Tacoma News analysis as a touchstone for withholding the names of the other John Does is that the court did not distinguish between ‘unsubstantiated’ and ‘false’. The two terms do not mean the same thing. As these case files show, it is much easier to label
an accusation ‘unsubstantiated’ than to say with confidence that it is false. This is because ‘unsubstantiated’ often means only that an investigator, faced with conflicting accounts, is unable to reach a firm conclusion about what really happened and who is telling the truth.
Especially when the conduct reported is a fleeting touch, a comment seemingly off-color or directed at a student’s physical appearance, or a habit of writing personal notes, it is possible that the accuser misunderstood the words, misinterpreted the intent, or even fabricated the
entire event. But it is also possible that the accuser was accurately reporting inappropriate conduct. Where that possibility exists, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing the name of the accused teacher. If a teacher’s record includes a number of complaints found to be
‘unsubstantiated’, the pattern is more troubling than each individual complaint. Yet, if the teacher’s name in each individual complaint is withheld from public disclosure, the public will not be able to see any troubling pattern that might emerge concerning that teacher….Accordingly we conclude that the name of a teacher who has been the target
of an unsubstantiated allegation of sexual misconduct one that is not
patently false is subject to public disclosure, notwithstanding Tacoma
News. When an allegation against a teacher is plainly false, as shown by
an adequate investigation, that teacher’s name is not a matter of
legitimate public concern. Investigative files with identifying
information redacted will always be subject to disclosure.
We affirm the order of nondisclosure as to Federal Way John Doe 1, Seattle
John Doe 1, and Seattle John Doe 7. As to all the other prevailing John
Does, the order of nondisclosure is reversed.”
Read the entire opinion here.