PHILADELPHIA – A Bucks County man seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the provisions of Section 17.2 of Pennsylvania’s Educator Discipline Act – a statute which he feels criminalizes the disclosure of truthful information connected to the filing of an educator misconduct complaint with the Commonwealth’s Department of Education – wants to proceed anonymously in his action and file unredacted exhibits along with it.
John Doe first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 23 versus Bucks County District Attorney Matt Weintraub and Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry.
“On June 26, 2023, Doe submitted an educator misconduct complaint with the Pennsylvania Department of Education via the Department’s online portal. The misconduct complaint was filed against an individual employed by a public school district located in Bucks County,” the suit said.
“The online form maintained by the Department contains the following statement: The educator misconduct complaint process is confidential and any unauthorized release of confidential information is a misdemeanor of the third degree. All information relating to complaints must remain confidential unless or until public discipline is imposed. Thus, the filing of a complaint, the Department’s investigation of a complaint and the disposition of the complaint prior to the imposition of public discipline, as well as any and all information learned as a result of the Department of Education’s investigation, is strictly confidential.”
The suit added that the cited section of the Educator Discipline Act states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all information relating to any complaints or any proceedings relating to or resulting from such complaints, including the identity of the complainant, shall remain confidential, unless or until discipline is imposed, other than a private reprimand or a supplemental sanction deemed private by the commission, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding unless otherwise specified in this Act” – and further, that “any person who releases or gives out information deemed confidential under this Act, without authorization of the commission or as authorized by this Act, commits a misdemeanor of the third degree.”
“On July 22, 2023, the Department sent a letter advising Doe that it would take no action on his complaint and would dismiss Doe’s complaint against the public educator. The letter went on to state, ‘In closing, I must inform you that the Educator Discipline Act provides that any unauthorized release of confidential information is a misdemeanor of the third degree,” the suit stated.
“Doe desires to disclose the fact that he filed the misconduct complaint, publish the contents thereof, and further disclose the communication he received from the Department with the Department’s refusal to take action against the educator that was the subject of his misconduct complaint. However, due to the Act’s criminal penalties for disclosure of any information about the filing and disposition of the misconduct complaint, Doe fears prosecution if he should publish such information and publicly criticize the Department for its failure to take action.”
Though the Act contains a provision by which a citizen may seek a release of information, via petition, from the scope of the Act’s prohibition on disclosure, the suit continues that “this provision of the Act is unconstitutional, because it imposes on private citizens desiring to speak about matters concerning the workings of government the burden of obtaining prior approval from the government itself in advance of speaking and disclosing information deemed confidential under the Act.”
“Thus, even with the Just and Proper Clause, the Act still violates the First Amendment in imposing subsequent penal sanctions on citizens such as Doe who wish to engage in speech about, and publish documents concerning, the filing of educator misconduct complaints and the Department’s handling thereof. Doe has no adequate remedy at law,” the suit said.
UPDATE
On Sept. 8, the plaintiff filed a motion to continue proceeding anonymously in his case and for leave to file unredacted exhibits associated with it under seal.
“Plaintiff moves the Court to allow him to proceed under a pseudonym and file unredacted versions of Exhibits A and B to his complaint under seal. Plaintiff seeks such relief to preserve the confidentiality of his identity and prevent certain individually identifiable information from being made public. This relates to an educator misconduct complaint plaintiff has filed and the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s response thereto. Plaintiff does not make this request out of any personal inclination to obscurantism, but rather because of a reasonable fear of criminal prosecution should he disclose his identity and information contained in the unredacted exhibits,” per the motion.
“Because even disclosure of the fact of the filing of a misconduct complaint is a prohibited disclosure under the expansive criminal provision of the Act, plaintiff fears prosecution if he would so much as publicly state that he has filed such a complaint and name the public educator. Further, because plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed without any public discipline imposed on the educator, plaintiff may not disclose the Department’s communications with him dismissing his complaint. All of this militates that plaintiff’s identity and other individually identifiable information about plaintiff and the subject of his complaint be kept confidential, until the Court should determine the constitutionality of the Act’s restrictions on publication and issue an injunction to protect plaintiff from prosecution by either defendant for disclosure of such information. The complaint challenges these provisions of the Act under the First Amendment.”
For two count of unconstitutionality, the plaintiff is seeking the Court to find Section 17.2 of the Act unconstitutional as applied under the First Amendment and permanently enjoin the District Attorney and Attorney General from filing criminal charges against Doe under Section 17.2 of the Act for disclosing the fact that he has filed a complaint with the Department, disclosing the contents of such complaint, disclosing the Department’s disposition of his complaint and disclosing communications from the Department concerning his complaint, award attorney’s fees and costs and grant whatsoever other relief as is just and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Aaron D. Martin of Mette Evans & Woodside, in Harrisburg.
Defendant Henry is represented by Alfred J. Vogt of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office – Civil Division, also in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03252
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com