Rainbow Group, Ltd. v. Texas Employment Commission and William Grossenbacher

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-94-00405-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 3, 1995; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rainbow Group, Ltd. sought a writ of mandamus and a declaratory judgment to compel the Texas Employment Commission (the Commission) and its administrator, William Grossenbacher, to disclose records under the Texas Open Records Act. Specifically, Rainbow requested a list of Austin area haircutting and barber shops registered as employers and records of unemployment taxes paid in 1992 and 1993 for certain employers. The Commission denied the request, citing an exemption in the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act that classifies "employment information" as confidential. The trial court granted the Commission's plea to the jurisdiction regarding the declaratory judgment claim and denied Rainbow's petition for mandamus and damages. Rainbow appealed, focusing on whether the Commission was justified in withholding the requested information under the Open Records Act exemption for confidential information. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of "employment information," with Rainbow arguing the exemption applies only to individual employee records, while the Commission asserts it encompasses all employment-related data obtained from mandated reports.

The Open Records Act establishes the principle that government officials cannot withhold information from the public, emphasizing the people’s control over government. It is designed to allow public access to information, with a focus on balancing the need for disclosure against the need for confidentiality in certain cases. While Rainbow argues that only employee-related information is protected under the Labor Code, the Act includes various exemptions that apply to employer information as well. These exemptions pertain to areas such as competitive bidding, law enforcement, and trade secrets, indicating that confidentiality extends beyond individual privacy rights to include critical governmental interests. The Unemployment Compensation Act requires confidentiality for both employee and employer information to ensure effective administration of the program. The U.S. Department of Labor has highlighted that maintaining confidentiality prevents negative publicity that could hinder claims and cooperation with state agencies. The Texas Attorney General has interpreted confidentiality provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Act to apply broadly to all information collected by the Commission. Although Attorney General interpretations are not binding, they are given significant weight by the courts in Open Records Act cases.

After the issuance of the Attorney General's Open Records Decision 599 in January 1992, the Unemployment Compensation Act was recodified in the Labor Code without significant changes. The legislature's reenactment of the statute implies approval of the original interpretation of the law, suggesting that the new version should be interpreted in the same manner as the old. Notably, the only modification to section 202.091 during recodification was a change in wording from "information thus obtained" to "employment information thus obtained," aligning with the terminology used by the Attorney General.

Given this context, the Attorney General's position that all information obtained by the Commission from employer reports under section 202.091 is exempt from disclosure is upheld. Rainbow argued that the information it requested differed from that addressed in Decision 599, necessitating a determination of confidentiality. However, the failure to seek a decision from the Attorney General within ten days of receiving the request results in a presumption of public availability.

Decision 599 specified that certain employer-related information, including SIC codes and employee counts, is exempt from public disclosure while affirming that all other information from employer reports under the Unemployment Compensation Act is also confidential. Subsequent informal opinions reiterated this confidentiality. Since Rainbow's requested information could only be obtained from employer reports, the Commission was justified in relying on prior determinations without seeking further opinions.

Ultimately, the court upheld the Commission's denial of Rainbow's request and affirmed the trial court's ruling, overruling Rainbow’s points of error and concluding that the requested information is legally exempt from public disclosure.

Appellee Grossenbacher is referred to as part of the "Commission" since he was sued only in his official capacity. The Attorney General determined that the Commission's employer identification number is confidential under federal regulations, rather than being protected by the Labor Code's exemption for "employment information." Rainbow argued that the information it sought could be obtained from other sources besides the Commission's employer reports, claiming that the trial court should have conducted an in camera review of the Commission's documents. However, the record lacks evidence to support Rainbow's claim. The trial court correctly assumed that the Commission would need to rely on employer reports to fulfill Rainbow's request, in line with legal precedents that presume public officials act honestly and diligently. Consequently, since Rainbow failed to demonstrate that the information was accessible from sources other than the employer reports, it was not entitled to an in camera inspection of the Commission's documents.