Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission (1993)
If there is one Connecticut case that quietly but permanently shaped how Freedom of Information Act requests are handled, it is Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission. It is not flashy. There is no scandal. No secret tapes. No dramatic whistleblower. Instead, the case does something far more important. It explains, carefully and clearly, what “privacy” actually means under Connecticut FOIA. That clarity is why the case still shows up in FOI training materials, FOIC decisions, and Superior Court briefs more than thirty years later.
The dispute
The case began with a straightforward request. A local taxpayers association asked a public school district for records showing how much sick leave a particular teacher had accumulated, how much had been used, how much had been paid out, and the last day the teacher worked. The teacher objected. She argued that releasing her sick leave records would invade her personal privacy. The school district agreed and denied the request. The taxpayers association appealed to the Freedom of Information Commission, which ordered disclosure. The teacher then appealed to court.
At its core, the case asked a deceptively simple question. When does disclosure of personnel information cross the line into an invasion of personal privacy?
The legal problem the Court had to solve
Connecticut’s FOIA exempts personnel or medical files if disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. The statute does not define what an invasion of personal privacy actually is. Before Perkins, agencies often treated the phrase as self explanatory. If something felt personal or uncomfortable, it was withheld. The Supreme Court rejected that approach. The Court explained that FOIA starts with a presumption of openness. Exemptions must be narrowly applied. Saying privacy is not enough. An agency has to prove it.
The Perkins test
In Perkins, the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated a two part test that still governs privacy claims under FOIA today. To lawfully withhold records under the privacy exemption, the agency must show both of the following. First, the information does not pertain to a legitimate matter of public concern. Second, disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Both elements must be satisfied. If either one fails, the record must be disclosed. This was a major shift. It replaced intuition and discomfort with an objective standard.
Why the teacher lost
Applying the test, the Court concluded that numerical sick leave and attendance data did not qualify for the privacy exemption. The records did not reveal medical diagnoses or the reasons for absences. They showed only numbers. How much leave was earned. How much was used. How much was paid. When the employee last worked. The Court also emphasized that public employment changes the privacy analysis. Public employees are paid with public funds. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing how those funds are used and whether employees are performing their duties. Importantly, the teacher offered only speculative claims of embarrassment. The Court made clear that generalized discomfort or hypothetical misuse of information is not enough. Privacy exemptions require evidence, not assumptions.
Why this case still matters
Perkins is the reason agencies cannot automatically withhold attendance records, payroll data, sick leave balances, or similar personnel information. It is also the case that FOIC hearing officers return to when agencies invoke privacy without analysis. The burden is on the agency. The standard is objective. And the public interest is not an afterthought. For municipalities, Perkins provides a reliable framework. It does not eliminate privacy protections, but it puts them in the right place. Truly private information can still be protected. Routine employment data usually cannot.
The practical takeaway
The lesson of Perkins is not that privacy does not matter. It is that privacy under FOIA is narrower than many people expect. When reviewing a FOI request involving personnel records, the question is not whether disclosure feels uncomfortable. The question is whether the information lacks any legitimate public concern and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person if released. That is a demanding standard. And intentionally so.
Closing thought
Most FOIA cases fade into obscurity once the dispute ends. Perkins did the opposite. By clarifying the meaning of privacy, it reduced uncertainty for agencies, requestors, and courts alike. It is a reminder that some of the most important legal decisions are not dramatic. They are precise, careful, and quietly durable.
If you have questions about probate, conservatorship, or multi-state estate issues, feel free to call me or schedule a time.
Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and you should consult a licensed attorney for advice regarding your specific situation.