Court upholds withholding of prison contractor employee’s reprimand letters
Commonwealth Court upheld withholding of a prison contractor employee’s reprimand letters under personnel-record exemptions in an unreported opinion.
Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court has upheld the denial of access to reprimand letters concerning an employee of a prison healthcare contractor, finding that the requested material fell within personnel-record exemptions in the Right-to-Know Law. [S8, pp. 5–7]
The October 19 decision involved Alfonso Percy Pew’s request to the Department of Corrections for records concerning a medical provider at SCI-Phoenix. His original request had seven items, but he waived every issue on appeal except access to letters of reprimand. The court therefore addressed that narrower dispute. [S8, pp. 1–3]
Pew acknowledged that the department would not hold the letters and that they would be in Wellpath’s possession. Wellpath, which intervened in the appeal, argued that its internal employment records were outside required disclosure and also invoked exemptions. [S8, p. 3]
The court explained that a third-party contractor can invoke statutory exemptions when records are sought under the RTKL. It applied provisions protecting written criticisms of an employee and disciplinary information contained in a personnel file. [S8, pp. 4–6]
The OOR had concluded that the letters did not directly relate to Wellpath’s performance of its governmental function. The court expressly declined to decide that issue because it found the personnel exemptions sufficient to resolve the appeal. The opinion should therefore not be described as a ruling that all contractor personnel records fall outside Section 506(d). [S8, pp. 5–6]
The court also rejected Pew’s reliance on the public interest in disclosure, explaining that the requester’s identity and motive did not control the statutory analysis. It affirmed the August 5, 2025 OOR determination. [S8, pp. 6–8]
This is an unreported memorandum opinion about the reprimand letters that remained at issue. The opinion discusses a statutory exception for final agency action resulting in demotion or discharge, but it does not direct release of such a record here. [S8, pp. 1, 5–8]
The access decision does not establish any allegation of misconduct or the contents of any particular reprimand letter. RTK Media has not reviewed the underlying personnel file or independently verified subsequent appellate proceedings. Broader claims about the provider or the contractor would require separate reporting.
Official sources
- S8: Alfonso Percy Pew v. Department of Corrections (Office of Open Records) — 1037 C.D. 2025; 2026-10-19. Archived official PDF.
Don’t Speculate. Document.