Facts and Procedural History:

On May 26, 2009, the Information Policy Analysis Division received a letter dated May 22, 2009, from Pamela VanderWiel, an attorney representing the City of Oakdale. In her letter, Ms. VanderWiel asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains.

A summary of the facts as Ms. VanderWiel provided them is as follows. In her opinion request, she wrote that someone had asked for personnel data on five former city employees. Of relevance here is the part of the data request for the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of any employment relationship, including a buyout agreement."

Ms. VanderWiel wrote:

One or more of the former employees listed has received payment from the city's worker's [sic] compensation insurer pursuant to a negotiated agreement. A copy of such an agreement is enclosed for your review. This agreement contains what would generally be considered [not public] data about the former employee, including the fact of a work-related injury, the nature of the injury, certain medical information, and the amount of the benefits received by the former employee.

Issues:

Based on Ms. VanderWiel's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:

Discussion:

Issue 1

Are "settlement agreements" between a municipality's workers' compensation insurer and employee public documents pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6)?

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.

Of relevance to this opinion, certain data about settlement agreements specifically are classified as public by section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6):

the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement as defined in section 123B.143, subdivision 2, paragraph (a); except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money.

In her opinion request, Ms. VanderWiel wrote:

The city questions, however whether a claim for worker's [sic] compensation benefits by an employee is a "dispute arising out of an employment relationship," as intended by the legislature when it enacted [section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6)]. The dispute involving worker's [sic]compensation, if any, arises out of the former employee's injury and his or her entitlement to benefits to compensate for that injury, not from his or her relationship with the employer.

Further, the city notes that a settlement of a worker's [sic] compensation claim generally contains medical data, which is information more personal to an employee that [sic] that generally contained in, for example, a severance agreement. The legislature has recognized the privacy interest the employee has in the data by providing that medical data about an employee obtained by an employer or its workers' compensation insurer is to be treated as private data, under Minn. Stat. section 176.138.

Ms. VanderWiel noted that in Advisory Opinion 97-017 the Commissioner concluded that medical data contained in a settlement agreement are public. She wrote:

The facts of that opinion appear to be distinguishable, however. That case appeared to involve a standard separation agreement. In that situation, presumably the employee has a choice to exclude such data, and by including the data in the settlement, waives his or her right to complain about it being public. The settlement of a worker's [sic] compensation claim, however, necessarily involves the medical condition of the employee, and the employee has little choice but to include the information in the agreement.

It is the Commissioner's understanding that the types of settlement agreements made public by section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6), are related to issues over which an employee would resign, be terminated, or face discipline. These are issues clearly related to the employment relationship.

When someone has complained or made a charge about an employee, and the employee resigns prior to there being a final disposition, very little data about the circumstances are public. By making settlement agreements public, the Minnesota Legislature made a policy decision that if the dispute is settled with an agreement, the terms of the agreement must be public.

While the settling of a workers' compensation claim resolves a dispute, it is a dispute over who will pay the employee's medical expenses and how much each party will pay. This does not seem to be the type of settlement agreement the Legislature intended to be public under section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).

Issue 2

If such agreements are public, what, if any, information is the employer required to redact from the documents before making them available to the public?

See Issue 1.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. VanderWiel raised is as follows:

Signed:

Sheila M. Reger
Commissioner

Dated: July 7, 2009