|
The Minnesota Demographic Center remains hard at work collecting data for the 2020 Census.
Census data will drive policy decisions for the next 10 years, and an accurate count is necessary to ensure Minnesota has full representation in Congress and receives funding for services our state needs.
Please encourage your communities to complete the Census today so everyone in Minnesota is counted!
More information is available on the Minnesota 2020 Census website.
|
|
 |
In-Person Data Practices Office Trainings Remain on Hold
The Data Practices Office is not currently holding any in-person workshops or trainings as a precautionary safety measure related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, our office is in the process of developing an online workshop format that will allow us to deliver trainings remotely. We will post these trainings on our Workshops and Trainings page on the Data Practices office website when they are scheduled. Our office will also provide updates through our Data Practices Office email alerts when new workshops are available.
In the meantime, you can find several video resources and past webinars about data practices and open meeting topics on the Data Practices Office YouTube channel.
Adams v. Harpstead, A19-1514 (Minn. Ct. App., July 6, 2020) (unpublished)
Oscar Adams, a client-patient in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, brought an action against the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services alleging his private data was disclosed in two separate instances in violation of the Data Practices Act. Adams claimed he suffered emotional distress as a result of the disclosures and sought damages, a civil penalty, and injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner, finding Adams was not entitled to compensatory damages because he failed to show the disclosures caused him emotional harm nor was he entitled to the non-compensatory relief he requested. Adams appealed.
In affirming the district court's decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that Adams failed on his claim seeking recovery of damages for emotional harm. The Court wrote Adams's mere allegations of emotional harm were not sufficient to sustain a claim, and he did not provide competent evidence showing he suffered actual distress, such as experiencing physical symptoms or seeking treatment, as a result of the alleged disclosures.
The Court distinguished Adams's circumstances from the issues in Navarre v. South Washington County Schools, 652 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 2002). In Navarre, the alleged disclosure of private data was related to an investigation of a teacher's professional competence and was widespread throughout news media, which had the effect of making the teacher upset and afraid to be in public. In contrast, Adams's alleged violations were limited in scope and involved no general public disclosure. As a result, Adams's conclusory statements of distress were not sufficient to establish that he actually suffered emotional harm.
Additionally, the Court affirmed the district court's decision that Adams was not entitled to injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief, finding that he did not provide any evidence these forms of relief were applicable. The Court also rejected Adams's arguments that the district court erred when relying on an unpublished opinion, writing that the lower court acknowledged the opinion was not binding and had sufficiently addressed the merits of Adams's claims. Finally, the Court held the district court did not err when it denied Adams's requests to supplement the record because the additional evidence was not material to any of his claims.
The Commissioner of Administration has not issued any Advisory Opinions since the previous FYi Newsletter.
|
