The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) has determined that investigations of alleged discrimination by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) are “noncriminal investigations,” and that associated records are not subject to public disclosure under Section 708(b)(17) the state’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
To trigger this exemption, an agency — like the PHRC — must demonstrate a “systematic or searching inquiry, a detailed examination or an official probe” conducted into a noncriminal matter as part of the agency’s official duties, the OOR ruled.
If it stands, the decision in In Re Jonathan Valentin v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission Docket No.: AP 2024-0987 provides an extra layer of protection for businesses and individuals seeking to limit disclosure of allegations of discrimination. It will also guide the HRC’s response to future records requests.
Under Pennsylvania law, any party may appeal the OOR’s decision to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania within 30 days, leaving open the possibility that it could be overturned.
Background and Underlying PHRC Decision
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) authorizes the Commission to “initiate, receive, investigate and pass upon complaints charging unlawful discriminatory practices.” 43 P.S. § 957(f). The Act further provides in part that “[a]ny person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful discriminatory practice may make, sign and file with the Commission a verified complaint” prompting an investigation by the Commission. 43 P.S. §§ 959(a)-(b); see also 16 Pa. Code § 42.41. Put simply, the PHRA provides legislative authority for the Commission to investigate alleged discriminatory practices and actions under Pennsylvania law.
Though the OOR has previously determined that the Commission conducts noncriminal investigations under the PHRA, the OOR’s June 18, 2024 decision in In Re Jonathan Valentin v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission follows four separate requests to the Commission submitted by a single requester who sought full certified copies of records for five separate cases submitted to the Commission. The Commission denied the requests on the grounds that the records were considered “noncriminal investigations” and therefore exempt from public disclosure under Section 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(17) of the RTKL. The requester then appealed to the OOR challenging the Commission’s decision.
Decision on Appeal
After considering submissions by the Commission, including a position statement, exhibits, and a sworn statement by the Commission’s interim Open Records Officer detailing the Commission’s response to the requests, the OOR denied the requester’s appeal. In reaching its decision, the OOR recognized that “Section 708(b)(17) of the RTKL exempts from disclosure records of an agency ‘relating to a noncriminal investigation,’ including ‘[c]omplaints submitted to an agency,’ [i]nvestigative materials, notes, correspondence and reports,’ and [a] record that, if disclosed, would . . . ‘[r]eveal the institution, progress or result of an agency investigation.’” The OOR further recognized that to trigger this exemption, an agency — like the PHRC — must demonstrate a “systematic or searching inquiry, a detailed examination or an official probe” conducted into a noncriminal matter as part of the agency’s official duties.
Finding that the Commission had conducted such a “systematic or searching inquiry, detailed examination or official probe”—that is, an investigation into noncriminal complaints of discrimination submitted to the Commission in accordance with its official duties — the OOR determined the case records sought by the requester were exempt from disclosure under Pennsylvania’s RTKL.
[View source.]
