Julius G. Getman v. National Labor Relations Board
16 A.L.R. Fed. 499, 146 U.S. App. D.C. 209, 450 F.2d 670 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal agency must disclose requested records unless they are specifically protected by one of the nine narrowly construed statutory exemptions. Courts lack equitable discretion to refuse disclosure on grounds outside of these statutory exemptions.
Facts:
- Julius Getman and Stephen Goldberg, professors of labor law, initiated an NLRB voting study to empirically evaluate the Board's rules governing election campaign conduct.
- To conduct their study, the professors needed to interview employees before and after certain representation elections.
- On October 28, 1969, Getman and Goldberg requested that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) provide them with lists of names and home addresses of employees eligible to vote in several upcoming elections.
- The NLRB maintains these lists, known as 'Excelsior' lists, which employers are required by law to file with the Board before a representation election.
- The stated purpose of the NLRB's Excelsior rule is to ensure unions have a fair opportunity to communicate with employees.
- On April 22, 1970, the NLRB denied the professors' request.
- The Board justified its denial on the grounds that the professors' study and interviews would disrupt the 'laboratory conditions' necessary for fair elections and would cause delays in the election process.
Procedural Posture:
- Julius Getman and Stephen Goldberg sued the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in U.S. District Court after the agency refused their FOIA request.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the District Court.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Getman and Goldberg, ordering the NLRB to provide the requested employee lists.
- The NLRB, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) disclose employee names and home addresses from its 'Excelsior' lists to labor law professors for a research study under the Freedom of Information Act, despite the NLRB's claims that the information is protected by Exemptions 4, 6, and 7?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Skelly Wright
Yes, the NLRB must disclose the requested lists. The Freedom of Information Act compels disclosure because the lists do not fall within any of the Act's enumerated exemptions, and courts have no equitable jurisdiction to create new exemptions. The court reasoned that FOIA establishes a liberal disclosure requirement limited only by specific, narrowly construed exemptions. The NLRB's reliance on Exemptions 4, 6, and 7 was misplaced. Exemption 4 (trade secrets and confidential commercial information) does not apply because the lists are not commercial or financial. Exemption 7 (investigatory files for law enforcement) is also inapplicable as the lists are not compiled for law enforcement purposes. For Exemption 6 (personnel and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), the court must balance the public interest in disclosure against the individual's privacy interest. Here, the privacy invasion is 'relatively minor' as names and addresses are not highly personal, and employees can refuse to be interviewed. In contrast, the public interest in the professors' well-regarded study on NLRB election processes is substantial. Therefore, the disclosure is not 'clearly unwarranted.' Finally, the court held that FOIA's text and legislative history explicitly preclude courts from exercising equitable discretion to withhold non-exempt information.
Concurring - MacKinnon
Yes, the court must order the disclosure because the plain language of the Freedom of Information Act compels it, despite potential negative consequences. While agreeing that the statute's broad sweep and narrow exemptions mandate the release of the lists, Judge MacKinnon expressed concern that doing so could lead to 'undesirable interference in elections.' He worried that the decision would set a precedent for wholesale demands for government-held lists of names and addresses for purposes unrelated to scrutinizing government activity. He concluded that while this result may not be what Congress intended, the Act as written is unambiguous, and any correction must come from a legislative amendment, not judicial intervention.
Analysis:
This is a foundational FOIA case that firmly establishes the Act's strong pro-disclosure presumption and the principle that its exemptions must be narrowly construed. The court's rejection of judicial equitable discretion to withhold non-exempt records was a significant development, preventing courts from creating their own 'public interest' exceptions and reinforcing the supremacy of the statutory text. The decision's application of the Exemption 6 balancing test, which characterized the privacy interest in names and addresses as minimal compared to a significant public interest, set a major precedent for future cases involving requests for mailing lists and similar personal data held by the government.
