Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State University v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, CLERICAL-TECHNICAL

Decision Date11 July 1991
Docket NumberDocket No. 117401,CLERICAL-TECHNICAL
PartiesUNION OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellant. 190 Mich.App. 300, 475 N.W.2d 373, 70 Ed. Law Rep. 625
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

[190 MICHAPP 300] Finkel, Whitefield & Selik, P.C. by Bradley T. Raymond, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

Vence L. Bonham, Jr., and Mary E. Kurz, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Michigan State University, East Lansing, for defendant-appellant.

[190 MICHAPP 301] Farhat, Story & Kraus, P.C. by Max R. Hoffman, Jr., and Timothy M. Perrone, East Lansing, for Thomas Alguire, John C. Carlyle, Martin J. Sherman, Delores Storey, Richard Storey and Merlin V. Terrill, amicus curiae.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone by Roderick K. Daane and Charles A. Duerr, Ann Arbor, for Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, Michigan Technological University, Northern Michigan University, Oakland University, Saginaw Valley State University, The University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Western Michigan University, amicus curiae.

Before CYNAR, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and WEAVER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case arises out of a labor dispute between plaintiff Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State University and defendant Michigan State University. In September, 1988, the union filed a request seeking the names and addresses of certain classes of donors to MSU pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), M.C.L. Sec. 15.231 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(1) et seq. In response to the request, MSU supplied everything sought except the names of anonymous donors and the addresses of the other donors.

Subsequently, the union filed a complaint under the FOIA, alleging arbitrary and capricious denial of its request. Both parties moved for summary disposition. Following a hearing, the trial court ruled in favor of the union. The court held that a donor who allows his name to be published by the university has no right of privacy in his address. Those donors whose names were not published by MSU were treated similarly. The court awarded actual attorney fees and punitive damages of $500 under the FOIA for MSU's improper denial of the [190 MICHAPP 302] request. Defendant appeals as of right, and we reverse.

On appeal, MSU contends that the trial court erred in holding that the home addresses are not exempt from disclosure. We agree.

MSU is a "public body" as defined by the FOIA and is therefore required to disclose information under the FOIA. M.C.L. Sec. 15.232; M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(2); Kestenbaum v. Michigan State University, 414 Mich. 510, 327 N.W.2d 783 (1982). MSU argues, however, that the donors' home addresses are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA's privacy exemption, M.C.L. Sec. 15.243(1)(a); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(13)(1)(a). MSU contends that such information is of a personal nature, and that public disclosure would constitute "a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy."

We do not hesitate to agree with MSU that the donors' addresses are information of a personal nature. As noted by Justice Fitzgerald in Kestenbaum, the release of names and addresses inherently constitutes an invasion of privacy. The question before us, however, is whether such an invasion is unwarranted. The jurisprudence of this state is unsettled regarding the standard to be used in addressing this issue. Two theories or standards have emerged from the Supreme Court.

One theory is the balancing test, in which the court must weigh the potential harm from the invasion alongside the potential benefits to the public from disclosure. Kestenbaum, supra. Under the other standard, the court must determine whether the release of the requested information would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy." State Employees Ass'n v. Dep't of Management & Budget, 428 Mich. 104, 123, 404 N.W.2d 606 (1987). We need not choose between these standards because we find that [190 MICHAPP 303] under either one the court erred in ordering the donors' addresses to be disclosed.

We first note that the trial court erred in considering the fact that the donors would not be subjected to "harassment"...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Federation of Personnel v. University, Docket No. 133819.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 16 Julio 2008
    ...Press, Inc. v. Dep't of State Police, 243 Mich.App. 218, 622 N.W.2d 313 (2000); Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State Univ. v. Michigan State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 190 Mich.App. 300, 475 N.W.2d 373 (1991). 6. Pub. L. 108-82, § 1, 117 Stat. 7. 480 Mich. 902, 739 N.W.2d 90 (2007). The o......
  • Bitterman v. Vill. of Oakley
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 22 Enero 2015
    ...fund to cover other governmental operating expenses. Thus, this case is distinguishable from Clerical–Technical Union v. Mich. State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 190 Mich.App. 300, 475 N.W.2d 373 (1991), in which the addresses of donors4 to the university were kept anonymous because their donatio......
  • State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Univ. of Toledo Found.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 1992
    ...court in Hoffman rejected a similar "trade secret" argument.3 A Michigan case, Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State Univ. v. Bd. of Trustees, Michigan State Univ. (1991), 190 Mich.App. 300, 475 N.W.2d 373, held that Michigan State University did not have to release to a labor union th......
  • Taylor v. Lansing Bd W & L
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 27 Junio 2006
    ...exemption, as is the identity of the person seeking the information. See, e.g., Clerical-Technical Union of Michigan State Univ. v. Michigan State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 190 Mich.App. 300, 475 N.W.2d 373 (1991); State Employees Ass'n v. Dep't of Mgt. & Budget, 428 Mich. 104, 404 N.W.2d 606 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT