Recent Court Decisions

A public body violated FOIA by improperly asserting that the requestor’s request was unduly burdensome under Section 3(g). The requestor requested all emails between a specific employee of the public body and a private planning/architecture firm during a one month period. The public body responded by asserting the request was unduly burdensome because it had discovered 50 responsive emails comprising nearly 174 pages of material, and it asked the requestor to narrow her request. When a public body asks a requestor to narrow his/her request because it believes the request is unduly burdensome, this constitutes a denial under Section 3(g) of FOIA. Using a balancing test to determine whether complying with a request is unduly burdensome, the PAC asked whether the public interest in disclosure of the requested records outweighs the burden of compliance on the public body. The PAC found the public body “did not demonstrate with specificity how the process of retrieving and reviewing these records would constitute a significant burden on its operations” such that it would outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The PAC ordered the public body to immediately disclose the requested emails, subject to appropriate redactions.

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

Though a public body provided copies of and properly exempted portions of some records responsive to FOIA requests from multiple requestors for information concerning a criminal complaint filed by a then-public official, the public body violated FOIA by improperly redacting and withholding other responsive records.

In redacting/withholding certain records, the public body invoked exemptions under FOIA Sections 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), and 7(1)(d)(v). Section 7(1)(b) exempts private information from disclosure, and the PAC found that the public body properly withheld the account identification number and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) for the public official’s Facebook page as private information. It found, however, that the public official’s Facebook and Skype account names could not be withheld because they are akin to or derived from his legal name.

Section 7(1)(c) exempts from disclosure personal information which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The PAC found the public body properly withheld the public official’s birth date, which it considers “highly personal by its very nature.” It also found the public body properly withheld portions of statements the public official made to police regarding the extortion crime he was a victim of, as well as the identities of suspects who were private citizens. The PAC, however, found that the public body should have disclosed the amounts of money involved in the extortion, especially because the public official had publicly acknowledged that he was extorted.

Section 7(1)(d)(v) exempts from disclosure law enforcement records that would disclose unique investigative techniques and which would result in demonstrable harm to the public body. Here, the public body withheld records pertaining to unique investigative techniques for gathering information from electronic and social media sources. The PAC found that disclosing such information would result in harm because it could enable perpetrators to evade detection. In contrast, the PAC found that the public body had improperly redacted information regarding routine investigative steps. Finally, the PAC found the public body had properly refused to disclose search warrants when the search warrants themselves expressly prohibited their disclosure.

The PAC ordered the public body to immediately disclose the non-exempt portions of additional records responsive to the requests. This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

For the fifth time this calendar year, the PAC has told public bodies they must respond to FOIA requests. An individual submitted a FOIA request via email to a school district for various documents pertaining to an accounting, consulting and technology firm the school district did business with. The same day, the requestor received an automatic email response from the school district acknowledging receipt of the FOIA request and extending the timeline to respond by an additional five business days to ten total business days, as permitted by Section 3(e) of FOIA. Thirty-one days after submitting her FOIA request, the requestor had yet to receive a response from the school district. The school district also failed to respond to the PAC’s inquiries. The PAC ordered the school district to immediately provide all records responsive to the FOIA requester, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7. Again, the bottom line here is that public bodies must respond to FOIA requests within the time permitted per statute.

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

The school district had the right to suspend student C.R. for off-campus, sexually harassing statements he made toward two younger students as they were walking home from school. The Court found that the suspension did not violate C.R.’s First Amendment free speech rights because his speech was tied closely enough to the school to permit its regulation (in other words, a “nexus” to the school existed). It then found that “because the harassment happened in such close proximately to the school, administrators could reasonably expect the harassment’s effects to spill over into the school environment.” Based on this, the Court held that the school could take reasonable disciplinary action against C.R. The Court further held that the school did not violate C.R.’s procedural or substantive due process rights by imposing the suspension.

This case is not binding in Illinois, however, it reflects the increasing trend of courts to recognize the right of school districts to discipline students for certain misconduct that occurs off-campus.

The public body violated Section 2(a) of OMA at its June 6, 2016 meeting by: 1) closing a portion of its meeting to discuss legal matters under the Section 2(c)(11) exception for pending, probable, or imminent litigation without recording or entering into the closed session minutes its basis for finding that litigation was probable or imminent; and 2) discussing the mere possibility of legal action related to a bond sale during closed session without reasonable grounds to believe that a lawsuit was more likely than not to be instituted or that such an occurrence was close at hand. At a previous meeting of the same public body on May 31, 2016, a member of the public addressed the public body regarding the bond sale issue and stated that the public body was “ignoring the residents” and thus “forcing a lawsuit.” Prior to moving into closed session at the June 6, 2016 meeting, however, the same member of the public again addressed the public body, this time to clarify that her group was “not proceeding with a lawsuit. So I wanted to make it clear that if this is in fact the pending or imminent litigation, there is none on our part.” Due to the absence of “reasonable, specifically identified grounds” to believe litigation related to the bond sale was close at hand, the PAC found the public body was not justified in entering closed session. The PAC ordered the public body to make publicly available the portion of the closed session verbatim recording of its June 6, 2016 meeting related to the bond sale issue.

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