## Facts

- The Milwaukee Board of School Directors (MBSD) conducted a district-wide criminal background check of employees and identified 548 employees with criminal records.
- MBSD released employee names and criminal histories to the media; a reporter later requested personnel records for seven employees under Wisconsin’s open-records law.
- The requested personnel files included employment details and materials related to evaluations, discipline, and actions taken after the background-check results.
- MBSD’s records custodian notified the employees of an intent to disclose and indicated they could seek de novo judicial review to prevent release.
- The employees and their union filed suit seeking de novo judicial review and an order barring disclosure.
- The circuit court dismissed, reasoning de novo review was available only when the custodian was a district attorney.
- The court of appeals reversed and ordered a remand for de novo review; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether public employees are entitled to de novo judicial review when a non–district-attorney records custodian decides to release personnel-record information under Wisconsin’s open-records law.
2. Whether the court must apply an independent balancing test weighing the presumption of public access against privacy and reputational interests before disclosure.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.
- The Court held that the de novo judicial-review procedure recognized in *Woznicki* applies to decisions by any public-records custodian, not only district attorneys.
- The Court remanded for the circuit court to conduct de novo review and apply the required balancing test to the specific requested personnel records.
- The Court did not decide whether the requested records ultimately must be disclosed.

## Legal Principles

- Wisconsin’s open-records law begins with a strong presumption favoring disclosure; exceptions are construed narrowly.
- When disclosure of records implicates an individual’s privacy or reputational interests, the subject of the records is entitled to notice and an opportunity to seek de novo judicial review before release.
- De novo review requires an independent judicial determination, not deference to the custodian’s disclosure decision.
- The reviewing court must balance the public interest in access against specific privacy and reputational harms asserted by the affected individual.

## Conclusion

The court required that public employees receive notice and may obtain de novo judicial review of any records custodian’s decision to disclose personnel records, with courts independently balancing open-records access against concrete privacy and reputational interests.


Milwaukee Teachers’ Educ. Ass’n v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 227 Wis. 2d 779, 596 N.W.2d 403 (Wis. 1999)