NH Supreme Court Upholds Release of Pension Records

November 7, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that the public has a right to access the names of state pension benefit recipients, as well as the amounts they receive.


According toThe Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the court also decided that the public interest in releasing the information outweighed any privacy interests of the individuals named within the records. The ruling also affirms a lower court’s order from last year to the New Hampshire Retirement System to disclose the same records (see “NH Retirement System Appealing Order to Release Retiree Names”).

In February 2010, a reporter from The Union Leader requested from the agency, under the state’s Right-to-Know Law, a list of state retirement system members who received the 500 highest annual annuity payments in 2009, as well as the amounts paid to them. When the agency refused to release the names and only offered to provide the list of the amounts paid, the newspaper sued.

According to the article, the retirement system argued while the lists were agency records, they should be withheld under an exemption to the law for records that would invade a person’s privacy.

In deciding whether the exemption applied, the court applied a balancing test, weighing the public interest in releasing the information against the retirees’ privacy interests.

First, the court found only a minimal privacy interest existed in the information, noting that it in prior cases, New Hampshire courts have ordered the release of public employees’ names and salaries, including those of teachers. The court found the relatively small privacy interest at stake in those cases are similar to the interests of pension beneficiaries.

The agency argued the pension information implicated more of a privacy interest than salary information because the formula the state uses to calculate a retiree’s pension benefits, unlike salaries, takes into account aspects of a person’s financial situation, such as disabilities and marital status. The court rejected this argument, saying that although private information about retirees factors into the amount of benefits they receive, releasing the amount would not reveal that private information.

The agency also argued, unlike teachers, retirees were“more likely to be elderly and specifically targeted by fraudulent solicitations and scams.”

The court dismissed that argument as "speculative at best," citing the lack of evidence supporting it.

“[W]e find that retirees have a privacy interest in information associating their names with the amount of their retirement benefits,” said the court, “but conclude that it is not appreciably different from public employees’ interest in keeping the amount of their salaries private.”

The court also held the public has an interest in the information because “public funds are used to pay the annuities at issue . . . the public has some interest in knowing the amounts and to whom they are paid.”

Balancing the public interest against the privacy interest in the information, the court ultimately held that releasing it would not violate the retirees’ privacy under the Right-to-Know Law.