On August 24 the Washington Supreme Court ruled in WA Federation of State Employees, Council 28 v. Washington. The case focused on a Freedom Foundation public records request for certain contact and other identifying information on state employees. The employees’ unions objected to certain individuals’ information being released, especially those that that were victims of domestic violence and abuse. The Court ruled that a new state law passed in the 2023 session (while the case was pending) provides a new framework for addressing the release of identifying information of public employees who are also abuse victims under the Public Records Act. The Court sent the case back down to the lower courts to apply the new standard.

The Freedom Foundation filed a public records request for state employee contact information, and the public employee unions sought an injunction to prevent the disclosure of information on employees that were abuse survivors. The unions argued that releasing the information would compromise survivors’ substantive due process rights to privacy and personal safety in the state and federal constitutions and filed declarations from representatives who had communicated with survivors (rather than affidavits from the survivors themselves).

The trial court granted a preliminary injunction, and the Freedom Foundation appealed – arguing that no such constitutional rights existed and that the unions had failed to show cause for an injunction. The Court of Appeals found that the unions had properly brought a suit, but that they had failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to support a permanent injunction since the declarations the trial court relied on were not firsthand accounts. The appellate court did uphold the survivors’ constitutional right to protect themselves from their abusers and prevented the disclosure of their contact information, maintaining the preliminary injunction while the case was further litigated.

Before the Supreme Court could weigh in on the case however, the legislature passed HB 1533, which exempts certain public employees’ identifying information from PRA disclosure if they can demonstrate that they are abuse survivors. The high court agreed with the appeals court that the unions could bring the case and that the unions had insufficient admissible evidence to make their case for a permanent injunction. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the new state statute meant that the case did not need to be decided on constitutional grounds and remanded the case back to the trial court to consider the new exemption created by HB 1533.

Please note that this information is intended for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Cities should consult their legal counsel with any questions or concerns.