Recent Court Decisions

A public school district (District) violated FOIA by improperly using Section 7(1)(c) to redact portions of a settlement agreement with a former employee. On April 13, 2018, the Requestor submitted a FOIA request to the District seeking copies of records pertaining to a settlement agreement between the District and a former school principal. Three days later, the District provided the Requestor with a redacted copy of the settlement agreement but did not specify the exemption in Section 7 of FOIA that it claimed to authorize the redactions. The Requestor emailed the District to ask why the redacted information was not disclosed, and the District responded that the information was not disclosed because it would have constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA Section 7(1)(c). The Requestor sought review by the PAC, alleging the District failed to timely assert the exemption it used and that the District did not assert a genuine basis for the unwarranted invasion of personal privacy exemption.

After reviewing an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement, the PAC determined that the redacted portions – which very generally addressed the nature of the former school principal’s potential claims against the District – were so general that they were not highly personal, and so their disclosure would not be objectionable to a reasonable person. Further, the PAC found that the nature of the claims bear on the public duties of a public employee, which it had previously held “shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy.” PAC 15-004. For these reasons, the PAC held that the redacted information was not exempt from disclosure under the plain language of Section 7(1)(c) and ordered the District to provide the Requestor an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

A village police department (Department) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On May 17, 2018, the Requestor submitted a FOIA request to the Department seeking electronic copies of reports generated concerning three named individuals and one specific address. On May 30, 2018, the Requestor submitted a Request for Review PAC alleging the Department had not responded to her FOIA request, even though she had sent them two follow-up emails and made three follow-up phone calls. The PAC’s own correspondence to the Department went unanswered, so an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) with the PAC telephoned the Department. A Department employee answered the phone and stated the police chief had been out of the office for weeks and the secretary was also out. The AAG left a message but no one from the Department returned the AAG’s call. As of the opinion’s date, the Department had not responded to the PAC.

The PAC held that the Department’s failure to respond to the Requestor violated Section 3(d) of FOIA and it ordered the Department to immediately provide the Requestor with all responsive records, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

In July 2014 Rosemary Vega (Vega) was removed from a public meeting of the Chicago Board of Education (Board) for “disruptive behavior,” and she was subsequently prohibited from attending any Board meetings until March 2017. Vega sued the Board, alleging her removal and prohibition from attending meetings violated her First Amendment Free Speech rights.

Reviewing the facts, the Court discovered that over a fourth month period, Vega had demonstrated “a persistent and escalating willingness to cause disturbances during Board meetings.” In March 2014, Vega exceeded her allotted two-minute speaking time and had to be ushered from the podium. In May 2014, Vega stated she would “get kicked out of the Board meeting every month for two minutes for the next how many years you got of life.” In July 2014, Vega violated the Board’s Public Participation Guidelines by rushing up the dais, yelling at a Board member, shaking her fist, and interrupting another speaker. Vega’s actions were perceived as threatening by security officers and she refused to leave when asked to.

The Court found that the Board’s enforcement of its Guidelines did not violate the First Amendment because they were content-neutral, and were not speaker- or content-based. The Court also found that the Board’s 2.5 year ban on Vega attending Board meetings was proper because it was narrowly tailored – it “did not burden more of Vega’s speech than necessary to maintain order during Board meetings or to ensure that members of the public who wished to address the Board in accordance with the Guidelines had that opportunity.” Finally, the Court found that even when Vega was prohibited from attending Board meetings, she had ample alternative channels of communication left, including meeting individually with Board members during their office hours and the ability to submit written testimony to the Board.

The Cook County Health and Hospital System (CCHHS) violated FOIA by improperly withholding an amendment to an agreement for mental health services showing the fixed monthly amount that CCHHS pays for each recipient of services. On March 28, 2018, CCHHS received a FOIA request for a copy of an amendment to an agreement that was signed by CCHHS on May 15, 2015, and that showed a fixed monthly rate that CCHHS agreed to pay for mental health services via the amendment. On March 29, 2018, CCHHS denied the FOIA request, alleging that the requestor had already requested the very same document on May 22, 2015, and that CCHHS had provided the document to her with appropriate redactions. As a result, CCHHS denied the 2018 FOIA request under Section 3(g) of FOIA. Section 3(g) permits a public body to deny a request as unduly burdensome if it is a repeat request from the same requestor for the same records that are unchanged or identical to records that were “previously provided or properly denied.”

While the older, May 2015 FOIA request had in fact been for the same record, the PAC had actually reviewed that request and found that CCHHS’s redaction of the fixed monthly rate was improper. Because CCHHS’s original redaction was improper, the PAC found that CCHHS could not deny the requestor’s 2018 request using Section 3(g). The PAC ordered CCHHS to provide the requestor with the document she sought, without redacting the financial information at issue.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The City of Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (Department) violated FOIA by improperly redacting property index numbers (PINs) from records responsive to a FOIA request. On February 28, 2018, the Department received a FOIA request for a list of properties within Chicago that had been granted a Commissioner’s Adjustment under a shared housing ordinance, including the PINs for the properties. The Department responded but redacted the PINs, and the requestor submitted the matter to the PAC for review. In response to the PAC’s inquiries, the Department stated the PINs were exempt as both “private information” under Section 7(1)(b) of FOIA and “personal information” whose disclosure would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under Section 7(1)(c) of FOIA.

FOIA defines “private information” as “unique identifiers, including a person's social security number, driver's license number, employee identification number, biometric identifiers, personal financial information, passwords or other access codes, medical records, home or personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses. Private information also includes home address and personal license plates, except as otherwise provided by law or when compiled without possibility of attribution to any person.” Because PINs are unique to properties, not to people, the PAC found they are not “unique identifiers” exempt from disclosure as private information under Section 7(1)(b).

The PAC further reasoned that even if PINs were considered “unique identifiers,” there is no significant personal privacy interest in information that is public record under State law (as PINs are under the Property Tax Code) and is readily available on governmental websites. For this same reason, the PAC held that the Department could not claim the disclosure of PINs would constitute an “unwanted invasion of personal privacy.” The PAC ordered the Department to provide the requestor with the responsive list of properties, including their PINs.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.