According to the Court’s per curiam opinion, the replacement
teachers suffered harassment, violence and threats of violence as a result of
the teacher’s strike:
·
On March 3, a crowd of 75 to 100 people outside
the city council building (where the interviews and hiring was taking place) chanted,
jeered, and cursed at the applicants as they entered and exited the building to
apply for jobs. The crowd took pictures of applicants and screamed obscenities
at one applicant who entered the building with her two small children.
·
During the strike, acts of harassment and
intimidation aimed at the replacement teachers continued. Replacement teachers
discovered notes left in classrooms containing offensive messages. Signs were
distributed in neighborhoods where some replacement teachers lived identifying
the teacher by name and disclosing his or her address. SEA posted a “wall of
shame” on its website with the pictures of some replacement teachers; the
posting was accompanied by derogatory and offensive comments. Picketers
continued to harass and intimidate replacement teachers during the strike.
·
It was reported that a striking teacher was
arrested by the Strongsville Police Department for reckless driving when he
allegedly cut off a van transporting replacement teachers to work. The
replacement teachers reported to the police that the other driver nearly caused
a collision with the van. The replacement teachers described the incident as
“harrowing” and “outrageous” and stated that they “feared the worst” and were
“frightened.”
·
A replacement teacher reported to the police
that she was driving home after work when a car pulled up next to her and the
passenger yelled “scab” and threw an object at her windshield, breaking the
glass.
The teachers’ union immediately requested the names of the
replacement teachers and again a month later.
However, the school refused to produce them, citing a concern with their
safety. “In particular, the board
asserted that the names of the replacement teachers were not considered public
record because of the threat of harm to those teachers.” The
Supreme Court has previously recognized a “good sense” exception to the state
public records law when releasing the names of certain employees (such as undercover
police officers and children) would result in their harm. “The case law does
establish a right to privacy in circumstances in which a person might be at
substantial risk of serious bodily harm if personal information is disclosed. .
. . . Some cases also indicate that even when imminent bodily harm is not threatened or a potential risk, disclosure is
nevertheless precluded because of the potential for nonphysical harm.”
Upon considering the case in August -- months after the strike had ended on April 28--
the appellate court concluded that the
school had not proven that the replacement teachers still suffered any “threat
of harm after the strike had ended.”
Concerns that that the replacement teachers would suffer retaliation for
the remainder of their career was insufficient to make their names non-public.
Although the Supreme Court recognized that “[t]here may have been a genuine threat to the replacement teachers’ physical well-being from supporters of the strike” and that the school board “reasonably” concluded that the disclosure during the strike could place the replacement teachers at “substantial risk of serious harm,” it nonetheless affirmed the order to disclose the records in August (when the appellate court considered the mandamus lawsuit) because the school had “presented little or no evidence that once the strike was over, there was any remaining threat to the replacement teachers.” Accordingly, the appellate court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the disclosure of the replacement teachers’ names. The Court specifically rejected the school’s concern with a single threat that the replacement teachers would suffer retaliation that would follow them their entire careers.
