California Public Records Act Settlement Agreements

Q: To what extent are school district settlement agreements public if they contain confidential student information? Finally, the county attempted to argue that the former employee had disclosed the facts himself and that the settlement agreement had been reached with her family and friends as a defence. However, the court found that once the county violated the agreement, a jury could reasonably conclude that the plaintiff`s continued obligation under the confidentiality agreement was excused. Many school districts and other public agencies are considering making a transaction agreement “confidential,” despite laws that require public government transparency and the availability of documents through the California Public Records Act. To strike a balance between the concepts of privacy and open government, a California appeals court ruled that a confidentiality clause is permitted in a transactional agreement between a public employee and the public entity, even though a public entity may not be able to completely hide the terms of the agreement. To Sanchez v. San Bernardino County (2009) __ Cal. Rptr.3d __ (2009 WL 2414926), plaintiff Elizabeth Sanchez, while a district employee, negotiated an employment contract with the sheriff`s union. A few months after the negotiations, she was lovingly engaged to the union president. When his boss discovered the relationship, he was asked to resign.

The county and the applicant entered into a settlement agreement that separated their employment and included the following confidentiality provision: I must also mention that in the absence of a specific exception, agencies often seek to withhold disclosure records by invoking the statutory catch-all exception of section 6255(a) of the Government Code. For more information about this regulation and ACPR`s questions, please contact the authors of this disclaimer, which can be found directly at the firm`s ARC: Advanced Records Center, or your BB&K ATTORNEY. Feel free to share this legal alert or sign up by clicking here. Follow us on Facebook @BestBestKrieger and @BBKlaw on Twitter. Disclaimer: BB&K Legal Alerts is not intended to be legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect the topics they contain. Shortly thereafter, several county employees, including the applicant`s supervisor, were quoted in newspaper articles stating that the applicant had resigned due to a conflict of interest due to an inappropriate relationship with the union president. The plaintiff raised several grounds, including violation of the non-disclosure provision of the settlement agreement. The county asserted that it was required to disclose the misconduct and that the confidentiality provision was void against public order in favor of open government.

While it should generally be possible to draft a settlement agreement without including material sensitive enough to be exempt from disclosure under the PRA, it is conceivable that a settlement agreement may contain material that is legally exempt from disclosure under federal or state law. For the purposes of the by-laws, the brief means “one or more of the following: name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth of the student, adult, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of sports team members, dates of participation, diplomas and awards received, and the last public or private school the student attended.” Code Ed § 49061 (c). Q: The Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has approved a settlement of a lawsuit filed by Clear Channel Outdoor regarding the removal of certain billboards from MTA property to make way for a road improvement project. Around the same time, the MTA agreed to sell surplus land to the city for a park project, on the condition that the city approve an additional use district that would allow four new Clear Channel billboards to be erected on another MTA property adjacent to one of the city`s highways. According to documents filed in support of the Additional Use District, its creation was required as a condition of settling Clear Channel`s lawsuit. However, the MTA board refused to disclose details of the dispute, stating that this is excluded until all parties agree to the settlement. Since Clear Channel will obviously not accept the settlement unless the additional use district is approved, City Council is essentially being asked to comment on an issue in which the central element is unknown to the public, i.e. the exact details of the dispute. Can the MTA legally refuse the agreement it has already approved? Public employers who include confidentiality clauses in their contracts should ensure that the wording explicitly provides for disclosures that may be required by law. In addition, those who enter into the agreements should be asked to abide by the conditions and not to make statements to the press or even to their friends and family, as such disclosures may expose them to a valid claim for breach of contract.

I should also mention that unless a specific exception applies, agencies often attempt not to disclose documents by invoking the law`s “catch-all” exception contained in the Government Code § 6255(a). California courts have confirmed that the litigation exception applies to settlement notices. Vol. of Trs of California State Univ. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 889, 899 (2005). Like the inBd court.

De Trs of California State Univ., “The parties to the dispute have a vested interest in protecting these communications between attorneys from disclosure to third parties while the litigation is ongoing. Authorisation to make such documents available to the public would in many cases affect the parties` ability to settle the claim before trial. Such a result contradicts the strong public policy of that State, which favours the settlement of acts. Id. Here, based on your request, it is not clear whether the “dispute or claim has been definitively settled or otherwise settled”. When the dispute is closed and the settlement is final, the settlement agreement should be considered a public document subject to disclosure. If the conclusion of the dispute is subject to the Approval of the City, the dispute does not appear to be final and, therefore, the settlement agreement would likely be exempt from disclosure under the PRA. One argument you could make is that the city did participate in the by-law in a partisan manner, since its vote for the additional use district is a condition of the by-law, in which case the city would likely have a right of access to the agreement, since the exemption applies “if requested by persons or entities not involved in the dispute.” Vol. of Trs of California State Univ., 132 Cal. App. 4th to 899.

“The public interest in the consideration of the . The report is not supported by the fact that the identity of [these persons] is known. Knowing their identity does not help the public understand how council responded to the allegations about [the Superintendent]. BRV, Inc.c Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 759 (2006). A: Copies of settlement agreements entered into by school districts must be disclosed under the Public Records Act. It is not at all clear whether information that may relate to a student in a settlement agreement is likely to be considered a “student record” within the meaning of these provisions. A court is more likely to consider whether the information in question could inappropriately interfere with a student`s privacy interests, either based on the section 6255(a) exception listed below or California`s constitutional right to privacy.

The Court concluded that the confidentiality clause was not contrary to public policy because it explicitly excluded all disclosures that are “legally permitted”. The county also defended its disclosure to the media, arguing that it was protected by the First Amendment. However, the court said the county had waived its rights to free speech by accepting the confidentiality provision. The county went on to argue that the law required disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.), including disclosure of the agreement itself. However, no request was ever made. Unless and until such an appropriate request has been made, the court said, the county would be required to comply with the terms of the agreement, and any disclosure would constitute a binding breach of contract. Many school districts and other public agencies are debating whether they should make a settlement agreement “confidential,” despite laws that require public government transparency and the availability of documents through the California Public Records Act. By striking a balance between the concepts of privacy and open government, a California appeals court ruled that a confidentiality clause is permitted in a settlement agreement between a public employee and the public entity, even though a public entity may not be able to completely hide the terms of the agreement.

In Sanchez v County of San Bernardino (2009) __ Cal. Rptr.3d __ (2009 WL 2414926), plaintiff Elizabeth Sanchez, while a district employee, negotiated an employment contract with the sheriff`s union. A few months after the negotiations, she got romantically engaged to the union president. When his supervisor discovered the relationship, he was asked to resign. The county and the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement that separated her employment and included the following confidentiality provision: 4th 516, 526 (2009) (confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement with the county that allegedly violated the Public Records Act). .