February 3, 1997; School District 280 (Richfield)
2/3/1997 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On December 12, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, Minnesota Sun Publications (MSP), publisher of several Twin Cities area newspapers. In that letter, Mr. Anfinson described his client's attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by Richfield Independent School District #280. Mr. Anfinson enclosed copies of related correspondence and news articles. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Lowell D. Larson, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated December 18, 1996, were to inform Mr. Larson of Mr. Anfinson's request, to ask him or the District's attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (PIPA subsequently learned that Barbara Devlin is now the superintendent.) On January 6, 1997, PIPA received a response from Karen A. Janisch, attorney for the District. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. Anfinson, a reporter for MSP learned that a District school bus driver had been disciplined, apparently because he had failed a drug test. The reporter requested access to the specific reasons for the discipline, and the data documenting the discipline, pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2]. In response, the District expressed concern that disclosure of the requested data might conflict with other state and federal laws relating to dissemination of information relating to drug tests on employees. In her responses to Mr. Anfinson and the Commissioner, Ms. Janisch stated that the District interprets the Federal Department of Transportation Regulations Governing Alcohol and Drug Testing, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Section 382, and Minnesota Statutes Sections 181.950-181.957 as requiring that the data be treated as private data on individuals and treated confidentially. Ms. Janisch enclosed a copy of the federal regulations. Ms. Janisch stated: [i]f state law requires release of this information, resolution of the federal preemption issue is essential. . . . [The federal regulations] expressly preempt state law when compliance with both state law and the federal regulations is not possible or where compliance with state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment of any requirement of the federal regulations. 49 C.F.R. [Section] 382.109(a). Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, government data are public unless otherwise classified by state statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law. Section 13.43 classifies certain data about public employees as public, including the final disposition of any disciplinary action taken against an employee, the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action. Section 181.954, subdivision 2 provides: Test result reports and other information acquired in the drug or alcohol testing process are, . . . with respect to public sector employees and job applicants, private data on individuals as that phrase is defined in chapter 13, and may not be disclosed by an employer or laboratory to another employer or to a third-party individual, governmental agency, or private organization without the written consent of the employee or job applicant tested. Assuming there has been a final disposition of disciplinary action in the case of the District school bus driver, the relevant provisions of Sections 13.43 and 181.954 appear to be in conflict. However, Ms. Janisch asserted that a provision of federal law preempts any conflicting provisions of state law. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Section 382.405(a): [e]xcept as required by law or expressly authorized or required in this section, no employer shall release driver information that is contained in records required to be maintained under [Section] 382.401 [which include records related to a driver's test results']. PIPA staff, in attempting to determine whether the language except as required by law in 49 C.F.R. Section 382.405(a), might mean that the relevant provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 determine the classification of the data in question, contacted the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carrier Standards and Research. That office faxed PIPA its May 23, 1996, interpretation of the federal regulations. Pursuant to that interpretation: The term as required by law' in [Section] 382.405(a) means Federal statutes or an order of a competent Federal jurisdiction, such as an administrative subpoena. The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, and the implementing regulations in Part 382, require that test results and medical information be confidential to the maximum extent possible. (Pub. L. 102-143, Title V, Sec. 5(a)(1), 105 Stat. 959, codified at 49 USC 31306) In addition, the Act preempts inconsistent State or local government laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, standards, or orders that are inconsistent with the regulations issued under the Act. The confidentiality provision of 49 C.F.R. Section 382.405(a), is further buttressed by 49 C.F.R. Section 382.109(a), which provides:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part preempts any State or local law, rule, regulation, or order to the extent that:
Therefore, pursuant to federal law, the data relating to the results of the employee's drug or alcohol tests are private data, and may not be disclosed by the District to MSP without the employee's written consent. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: February 3, 1997 |
Personnel data
Alcohol and drug test data
