You are here: / / Request for Employees’ Names and Addresses Not Allowed Under Balancing T...

Request for Employees’ Names and Addresses Not Allowed Under Balancing Test (Privacy versus Public Interest)

The Third Department applied a balancing test to determine whether petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for the names and addresses of employees should be granted.  The petitioner, a union employee, wished to communicate with the employees to ensure that nonunion contractors comply with the prevailing wage law (Labor Law 220).  The court affirmed the denial of petitioner’s request:

“FOIL is based on a presumption of access to [government] records, and an agency . . . carries the burden of demonstrating that [an] exemption applies to [a] FOIL request” … .  The personal privacy exemption (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [b]) incorporates a nonexhaustive list of categories of information that falls within the exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89 [2] [b] [i]-[vii]).  Where, as here, none of the categories applies specifically, the issue of whether there is an “unwarranted invasion” of privacy is decided “by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … . * * *

An unwarranted invasion of personal privacy has been characterized as that which “‘would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable [person] of ordinary sensibilities'” … .  Petitioner’s union desires names and home addresses so that it can contact employees of the nonunion contractor to find out if they were paid as reported by their employer.  The scenario of nonunion employees of a nongovernment employer being contacted at their homes by someone from a union who knows their names, their home addresses, the amount of money they reportedly earn, and who wants to talk about that income would be, to most reasonable people, offensive and objectionable. A significant privacy interest is implicated… . Matter of Massaro v NYS Thruway Authority, 516113, 3rd Dept 11-7-13

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.
REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
Object’s Fall of 1 ½ Feet Constituted Physically Significant Elevation Differential for Purposes of Requiring a Safety Device Pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1)
THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THE DEFENDANT PUNCHED THE POLICE OFFICER AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS SPRAYED IN THE FACE WITH PEPPER SPRAY; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE TO THE ASSAULT CHARGE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT.
Mother’s Prior Consent to Placement with Sister Did Not Preclude Mother’s Petition for Custody​
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW).
Lack of Standing Argument Waived

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“At Will” Clause in Employment Contract Precluded Action Based Upon Promissory... Four-Inch Floor-Drop Caused by Insect-Damage Constituted a “Collapse” within...