In re Human Rights Commission

In re Human Rights Commission  (96-268); 166 Vt. 599; 689 A.2d 458

[Filed 3-Jan-1997]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-268

                            NOVEMBER TERM, 1996


In re Human Rights Commission        }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     Washington Superior Court
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 166-3-96Wncv


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Preston Property Management appeals from an order of the
  Washington Superior Court compelling compliance with a subpoena duces
  tecum.  We affirm.

       On December 11, 1995, Edna Coleman filed a complaint of housing
  discrimination with the Human Rights Commission against Preston.  The
  complaint alleged a violation of the Vermont Fair Housing and Public
  Accommodations Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 4500-4507.  Specifically, Coleman claimed
  that she was denied housing by Preston due to her race, which is African-
  American.  Preston asserted in response that Coleman had a negative credit
  history and that her application was "incomplete and inaccurate."  To
  investigate the claim, the Commission requested certain information from
  Preston, including: a list of all residential rental property owned and/or
  managed by Preston; the name, number and address of each current tenant,
  identifying which tenants are African-American; the name, number and
  address of all tenants within the last two years who were African-American;
  the name, number and address of all prospective African-American tenants
  who had been rejected by Preston within the last two years; and the rental
  applications and credit histories of all of Preston's current tenants.

       Apart from providing Ms. Coleman's rental application and credit
  report, Preston refused to provide any of the requested documents.  The
  Commission thereupon issued a subpoena duces tecum for the credit reports
  and the addresses of all residential property owned by Preston. When
  Preston refused to comply, the Commission moved to compel compliance, and
  Preston moved to quash the subpoena.  The court granted the Commission's
  motion to compel and denied Preston's motion to quash.  The court further
  subjected the documents to a protective order requiring that they be kept
  confidential and not be released except by order of the court. Preston
  appeals.

       The Commission has broad power to subpoena documents under 9 V.S.A. §
  4553(a)(5), which provides:

     (a) To carry out its duties the commission may:

     . . .

     (5) issue subpoenas to compel testimony or access to or
     production of records, documents and other evidence or possible
     sources of evidence or the appearance of persons, provided that the

 

     subpoena is issued pursuant to a complaint filed in accordance with
     section 4554 of this title and that there is reasonable cause to
     believe that those materials or the testimony of the person are
     material to the complaint.


       The Commission explained to Preston that the subpoenaed documents were
  material to its investigation because they were necessary to determine
  whether Preston had treated prospective African-American clients
  differently from prospective non-African-Americans. Preston nevertheless
  asserts that disclosure of the credit reports would violate the privacy
  rights of its tenants, and, therefore, that the Commission should be
  required to demonstrate that they are relevant and that the governmental
  interest in their disclosure outweighs the tenants' privacy interests.  9
  V.S.A. § 2480e provides:

     (a) A person shall not obtain the credit report of a consumer
     unless:
          (1) the report is obtained in response to the order of a court
          having jurisdiction to issue such an order; or
          (2) the person has secured the consent of the consumer, and the
          report is used for the purpose consented to by the consumer.

       Preston cites no authority to engraft specific balancing requirements
  on the statute. Moreover, as noted, the credit reports in this case were
  obtained pursuant to a court order, which specifically required that they
  be held confidentially, and not be released except upon further order of
  the court.  These protections were adequate to protect the tenants'
  interests.


       Affirmed.



     BY THE COURT:



     _______________________________________
     Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice

     _______________________________________
     Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice

     _______________________________________
     John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

     _______________________________________
     James L. Morse, Associate Justice

     _______________________________________
     Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice