County's Disclosure of Confidential Personnel Records Deemed Illegal as a Matter of Law

The court held that because a county's public disclosure of a public safety officer's confidential personnel records in a court proceeding was illegal as a matter of law, it did not constitute protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.

The Ventura County District Attorney's office terminated the employment of investigator Towner after he testified on behalf of a fellow investigator at a Ventura County Civil Service Commission hearing. Towner appealed his termination to the commission. The county filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to enjoin the commission from hearing Towner's appeal, alleging a conflict of interest. In support of its petition, the county attached various confidential documents from Towner's personnel and disciplinary files. The trial court denied the petition. After hearing, the commission ordered Towner's reinstatement.

Towner sued the county for retaliation and related claims, as well as for violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) and Penal Code §832.7. Both claims were based on the county's alleged willful and unauthorized disclosure of Towner's confidential personnel files. The county filed a special motion to strike the POBRA and §832.7 claims under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court granted the motion.

The court of appeal reversed, holding that the POBRA and §832.7 causes of action did not arise out of protected activity because the county's disclosure of Towner's confidential personnel records was illegal as a matter of law. The county's failure to comply failure to comply with §832.7, which strictly limits the disclosure of a peace officer's personnel records, was illegal as a matter of law under Gov. Code §1222, which makes a public officer's "willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law" a misdemeanor. Here, the county's failure to treat Towner's personnel documents as confidential was willful, in that the county acted with the intent that the records be filed publicly in the county's writ proceeding. The county's conduct thus constituted a willful omission to perform a public duty enjoined by law, and was therefore not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Towner v. County of Ventura