Iowa Civil Rights Commission v. City of Des Moines/Personnel Dept., 65290
| Decision Date | 23 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 65290,65290 |
| Citation | 313 N.W.2d 491 |
| Parties | 28 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 960, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,790 IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, Appellee, v. CITY OF DES MOINES/PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Earl W. Roberts, City Sol., and Thomas J. McSweeney, Asst. City Atty., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Scott H. Nichols, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP, McCORMICK, and SCHULTZ, JJ.
This interlocutory appeal arose from a judicial proceeding to enforce an administrative subpoena duces tecum issued by the plaintiff, Iowa Civil Rights Commission. The defendant, City of Des Moines, refused to produce personnel and medical records of certain past and present employees as ordered by the subpoena. At the enforcement proceeding the City alleged that the records were confidential and not subject to the Commission's subpoena power. The trial court, by oral direction, provided a procedure to limit the subpoena of medical records to the files of those employees that had sustained injuries and required that such employees be given notice of and an opportunity to object to the subpoena. The City assigns error to this ruling. We find no error and affirm the trial court.
On January 2, 1976, James E. Washington filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission alleging that the Personnel Department of the City of Des Moines had discriminated against him on the basis of physical disability and race. In the complaint, Washington alleged the following:
I am a Black male. I was hired by the City Personnel Department to work in the Garbage Department in 1969. In 1970 when the Metro Solid Waste Agency took over the city garbage collection I retained my job and became an employee of the new agency. In 1971 while working I injured my knee. The injury was such that I eventually had to have knee surgery. After the surgery I received a doctor's release and returned to work where I worked until December 31, 1975 without any problems. When the City again assumed the responsibility for trash pick up I applied to the City Personnel Department for a job. I filled out the application and was told to report to the Health Department for a physical. I was found to be in good health but was told by Dr. Orduna that I had not passed the physical and could not be hired by the City because of my knee surgery. I know of a white employee who had knee surgery after I did who was hired by the City.
On November 14, 1979, while investigating Washington's complaint, the Commission issued a subpoena duces tecum to the City commanding it to produce for inspection personnel and medical records of seventy-three employees who had worked or were working as refuse collectors. The City refused to produce the requested records and on December 19, 1979, the Commission filed a petition for enforcement of its administrative subpoena in the Polk District Court. The City filed an answer seeking dismissal of the petition, alleging as an affirmative defense that the records sought were confidential under section 68A.7(11), The Code.
An evidentiary hearing was held on June 18, 1980, and both parties presented evidence. The trial court questioned the last witness to appear, the City Public Health Director, a medical doctor. The trial court entered into a colloquy on the record with counsel and stated that it thought the Commission was entitled to examine the records. However, the court then expressed concern about the rights of individual employees with regard to their medical records and asked the health director if his staff could review the medical records of the designated employees and accumulate the files of those employees who had sustained injuries during a certain period of time. The health director responded affirmatively, and the trial court issued what the parties allege to be an oral order requiring inspection and accumulation of the medical files of injured employees. The court further requested that the City notify such individuals that their records were being sought by the Commission and that the court would hear any objections as to why the records should not be furnished to the Commission. The Commission agreed to this procedure. The City objected, however:
I am prepared to do that but I don't want to do that, I want to give these individuals an opportunity to have their day in court; and if there is something in their files they don't want the public to know, and that is the purpose of the Act really, to protect them, not to protect the City.
You are a buffer between them and the public. It would protect you in the final analysis from any suits they might have against you if you did release them without authority, and from that standpoint you are protected; but I think the real people that are involved and the ones that are really intended to be protected by the statute are the individuals whose records are being sought.
They are the ones that really have the claim and if there is anything in their files they don't want us to see or to have the public know about, they should have a right to present that to us.
On July 11, 1980, the City filed an application for permission to appeal from the trial court's order. The Commission filed an application for permission to cross-appeal on July 18, 1980. We granted both applications for interlocutory appeal. The City claims the trial court erred (1) in failing to exempt from examination by the Commission information that met the requirements of confidentiality under section 68A.7, The Code, as medical and personnel records, and (2) in exceeding its statutory authority under chapter 68A by ordering city employees to appear and show cause why their records should not be examined. The Commission asserts that it had authority to issue the investigative subpoena and that it should have been sustained because chapter 68A was inapplicable.
I. Applicability of section 68A.7. In this appeal there is a confrontation between two separate governmental units. Each unit exists by virtue of statute and in this action each represents the interests of different private citizens and their respective rights. The power to investigate clashes with the right of confidentiality. To determine the superior right, we must examine, interpret, and reconcile the statutes involved.
Section 601A.5(2), The Code, gives the Civil Rights Commission power to "receive, investigate, and finally determine the merits of complaints alleging unfair or discriminatory practices." The Iowa Administrative Procedure Act invests administrative agencies with subpoena power:
Agencies have all subpoena powers conferred upon them by their enabling acts or other statutes. In addition, prior to the commencement of a contested case ..., an agency having power to decide contested cases has authority to subpoena books, papers, records and any other real evidence necessary for the agency to determine whether it should institute a contested case proceeding.... On contest, the court shall sustain the subpoena or similar process or demand to the extent that it is found to be in accordance with the law applicable to the issuance of subpoenas or discovery in civil actions....
§ 17A.13(1), The Code (emphasis added). The Commission contends that these provisions authorize it to subpoena medical and personnel records to enable it to ascertain whether probable cause exists under section 601A.15 to implement a conciliation process designed to eliminate the alleged discriminatory practice-which, if unsuccessful, results in a contested case hearing. It argues that the trial court erred in not ordering unconditional production of the records at issue, which will be discussed in division II.
The City contends the records at issue are confidential under Iowa's freedom of information act, ch. 68A, The Code, which governs examination of "public records." 1 Section 68A.2 states the general policy concerning the right of examination:
Every citizen of Iowa shall have the right to examine all public records and to copy such records, and the news media may publish such records, unless some other provision of the Code expressly limits such right or requires such records to be kept secret or confidential. The right to copy records shall include the right to make photographs or photographic copies while the records are in the possession of the lawful custodian of the records....
An exception to this general provision is contained in section 68A.7, the relevant portion of which provides:
The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release information:
....
2. Hospital records and medical records of the condition, diagnosis, care, or treatment of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warner v. Lerner
...that this ongoing practice was in effect as prescribed by law. The Supreme Court of Iowa, conversely, in Iowa Civil Rights Commission v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491 (1981), a case almost identical to the one now before this Court (but for the instant lack of state action), addressed ......
-
Press–Citizen Co. v. Univ. of Iowa
...from secreting its decision-making activities from the public, on whose behalf it is its duty to act.” Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1981). We have said the Act establishes “a presumption of openness and disclosure.” Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d......
-
Marcus v. Young
...from secreting its decision-making activities from the public, on whose behalf it is its duty to act." Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1981); see also U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Office of Consumer Advocate, 498 N.W.2d 711, 713 (Iowa 1993). In......
-
City of Riverdale v. Diercks
...its decision-making activities from the public, on whose behalf it is its duty to act.’ ” Id. (quoting Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1981)). “Accordingly, there is a presumption of openness and disclosure under this chapter.” Gabrilson v. Flynn, 5......
-
What Happens in Iowa Stays in Iowa: A Framework for Implementing Changes to State Open Records Laws
...should be disclosed under the exceptions listed in section 22.7(11) 26. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n v. City of Des Moines/Pers. Dep’t, 313 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1981). 27. IOWA CODE § 4.6(4), (7); see also ACLU Found. of Iowa v. Records Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 808 N.W.2d 449, 2011 WL......