Klein Independent School Dist. v. Mattox, 87-1017

• Decision Date: 22 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 87-1017,87-1017
• Citation: Klein Independent School Dist. v. Mattox, 830 F.2d 576 (5th Cir. 1987)
• Parties: , 42 Ed. Law Rep. 70, 2 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1391 KLEIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Rebecca J. Holt, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jim MATTOX, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 576

830 F.2d 576

56 USLW 2261, 42 Ed. Law Rep. 70,

2 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1391

KLEIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Rebecca J. HoltPlaintiffs-Appellants, v.Jim MATTOX, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87-1017.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 22, 1987.

Darah S. Headley, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Priscilla L. Champion, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jim Mattox, U.S. Atty., Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before RUBIN, GARZA and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

GARZA, Circuit Judge:

This action arises from a request by a third party to review the personnel file of a public schoolteacher.The school district sought an opinion from the Attorney General for the State of Texas as to whether its employee's college transcript was public information, and thus subject to disclosure under the Texas Open Records Act.The Attorney General's Office responded that the schoolteacher's college transcript must be released pursuant to the statute.

The teacher and school district filed this action for a declaratory judgment, stating that disclosure of the transcript would violate the teacher's privacy rights on the basis of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.They further requested injunctive relief ordering withdrawal of the opinion.The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the district court.The court dismissed the case on the basis that the teacher was not within the class of persons intended to be protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.The court also ruled that the statute did not create a private cause of action.Additionally, it held that the public's interest in disclosure of the transcript outweighed the teacher's limited right to disclosural privacy.We agree with the district court, and therefore affirm.

I.Facts and Proceedings

During the months of October and November of 1985, Dr. Donald Collins, the Superintendent of the Klein Independent School District, received two letters requesting copies of the "personnel file and other related public records" of Rebecca J. Holt.Ms. Holt is a public schoolteacher employed by the school district.The requests were made pursuant to the Texas Open Records Act.Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-17a(VernonSupp.1986).Dr. Collins asked the Attorney General's Office for the State of Texas whether the contents of Ms. Holt's personnel file, particularly her college transcript, were public records subject to disclosure under state law.An Assistant Attorney General sent an opinion to Dr. Collins informing him that, in addition to the other documents, Ms. Holt's college transcript must be released according to the Texas Open Records Act.Moreover, such disclosure was not proscribed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g(1974).Part of the support for this opinion came in response to the attorney's question to the Director of the FERPA Office.The Director stated that FERPA was inapposite in this regard because it pertained solely to education records of students.Excluded from FERPA are records relating to an individual who is employed by an agency or institution.

On July 14, 1986, Ms. Holt and the school district brought suit against Jim Mattox, the Attorney General for the State of Texas, alleging that he issued an opinion which, if followed, would cause the school district to act in violation of Ms. Holt's rights secured under FERPA and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.Suit was brought pursuant to FERPA, the first amendment,42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Article VI of the United States Constitution, and the Texas Open Records Act.The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief stating that, by virtue of the supremacy clause, Ms. Holt's FERPA and first amendment privacy rights were supreme to the requirement of disclosure under the Open Records Act.They also requested injunctive relief ordering withdrawal of the Attorney General's opinion.

On September 16, 1986, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that, inter alia, no cause of action under FERPA was stated.The defendant urged that FERPA does not provide for a private cause of action.Moreover, Ms. Holt did not fit within FERPA's definition of "student" and her transcript did not fall within the statute's definition of "education records."The defendant also claimed that Ms. Holt's interest in the confidentiality of her college transcript did not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected right to privacy.On the other hand, the plaintiffs insisted that if the school district refused to disclose the transcript because of FERPA or the first amendment, it would be subject to criminal prosecution under the Open Records Act.However, if it acted in accordance with the defendant's opinion, it would expose itself to liability for violating Ms. Holt's privacy protections.

On November 21, 1986, the district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and entered a final order dismissing the case.The court found that Ms. Holt was not in the class of persons protected by FERPA, and that FERPA did not create a private cause of action.Considering her first amendment claim, the court recognized that the public has a compelling interest and concern in the education of its young citizens.That interest encompassed the right of the public to know that schoolteachers are qualified to teach.The court concluded that the public's interest in disclosure of her transcript outweighed Ms. Holt's limited right to disclosural privacy.

II.Discussion

The district court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion.Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Pharo v. Smith, 621 F.2d 656, 664(5th Cir.1980).The appellants present two issues to this Court.The first issue is whether the lower court erred in ruling that they are not entitled to maintain this action pursuant to FERPA, either as a private cause of action or as an action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.The second issue is whether the court erred in finding that Ms. Holt's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of her academic record did not outweigh the public's interest in learning whether she is qualified to teach.

A. FERPA

The appellants essentially make two challenges to the district court's FERPA ruling.They contend that Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26(1975), provides the rationale for the proposition that a private cause of action exists under FERPA.Alternatively, they argue that even if a private right of action cannot be inferred from FERPA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 is available for vindication of the potential violation of Ms. Holt's protections.To better understand the appellants' argument, a review of FERPA is necessitated.

FERPA was designed to regulate the release of student records.A student's or parent's consent is required where personally identifiable information from the education records of a student is to be disclosed.The Secretary of Education is empowered to enforce the various provisions of FERPA.20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g(f).An educational agency or institution that unlawfully releases a student's record may lose federal funding.20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g(b)(1).This is the only express remedy provided in the statute.FERPA neither explicitly provides for a private cause of action, nor does its legislative history indicate that its drafters intended one.

Naturally, we are alerted to the problem that Ms. Holt is employed by the school district, and is not a student and never has been a student of the subject school district.It is fundamental from a reading of FERPA that a "student" is a "person with respect to whom an educational agency or institution maintains education records or personally identifiable information, but does not include a person who has not been in attendance at such agency or institution."20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g(a)(6);see34 C.F.R. Sec. 99.3.Further, FERPA's definition of an "education record" does not include those "persons who are employed by an educational agency or institution but who are not in attendance at such agency or institution, records made and maintained in the normal course of business which relate exclusively to such person in that person's capacity as an employee and are not available for use for any other purpose[.]"20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g(a)(4)(B);see34 C.F.R. Sec. 99.3.It is evident that "education records" refer only to those documents which "are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution."20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g(a)(4)(A);see34 C.F.R. Sec. 99.3.

It cannot be disputed that the statute was enacted to prevent an educational agency or institution from releasing the record of one of its own students.Excluded from FERPA's protections are records relating to an individual who is employed by an educational agency or institution.Because Ms. Holt has not attended any school within the Klein Independent School District, the agency which has been directed to release her transcript, she cannot be considered a "student" under the FERPA definition.Rather, Ms. Holt's capacity with the school district is that of an employee.Because she is an employee and not a student of the institution requested to disclose her transcript, she does not fall within that class of people for whose benefit FERPA was created.Ms. Holt is not a "student" and her college transcript is not an "education record" protected from disclosure pursuant to FERPA's provisions.

This determination eliminates the appellants' instruction to apply...