Did the Arkansas Department of Human Services correctly classify a current employee's records as personnel records, and were its redactions consistent with FOIA?

Plain-English summary

J. Mark White, an attorney for the Arkansas Department of Human Services, used the FOIA opinion mechanism in A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to check whether DHS's planned release of a current employee's personnel file complied with the statute. He sent the AG the redacted versions DHS planned to release.

AG Leslie Rutledge worked through the records and gave the Department a mixed pass.

On classification, the records were all personnel records. They were standard employee documentation: job description, application, salary information, offer letters with start dates, resume, references. None met the Thomas v. Hall (2012) definition of employee-evaluation records. Personnel records have to be released unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

On disclosure, the AG applied the Young v. Rice (1992) two-step balancing test. None of the records contained information of a personal or intimate nature creating a more-than-de-minimus privacy interest. The records did not even reach the second step of the test, where the privacy interest would be weighed against the public's interest in seeing what the agency was up to (Stilley v. McBride (1998)). The records had to be released.

On the redactions, the AG identified two problems with four total redactions.

Three of the redactions were technically deficient. The redaction marks did not fully obscure the underlying text. The redacted content remained visible through whatever the Department had used to mark it out (presumably digital highlighting or a translucent overlay). A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f)(3) requires redactions to show both the amount and place of the redaction, but it equally requires the redacted information not to be readable. The fix the AG suggested: photocopy the redacted pages, or scan them into PDF. The act of copying a redacted page converts the visible redaction into an opaque mark in the copy.

One redaction was substantively improper. On a page listing the employee's home phone, work phone, and "other" phone, DHS had redacted all three. A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) protects "personal contact information" of public employees, which covers home and "other" numbers. But work phone numbers are public; they are the means by which members of the public reach a public employee about agency business. There is no basis in FOIA to redact a work number. DHS needed to leave that one visible.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

The framework here is the same as in the AG's other 2015 personnel-records opinions: A.C.A. § 25-19-103(5)(A) defines "public record"; A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) is the personnel-records exception; A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) is the employee-evaluation exception; A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is the AG opinion mechanism.

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) is the section relevant to the bad work-phone-number redaction. It exempts "personal contact information" of public employees. The AG has consistently read "personal contact information" as covering personal addresses, personal phone numbers (home, cell), and similar information that is not part of the employee's public service. Work numbers, work email addresses, and the agency's general public phone tree are not "personal contact information."

The Young v. Rice (1992) balancing test, with Stilley v. McBride (1998) (quoting the federal U.S. Dept. of Defense v. FLRA (1994)) for the measure of public interest, is the controlling Arkansas case law on personnel-record disclosure.

The AG's mechanical observation about redaction technique, photocopy or scan a marked-up document so the marks become opaque, is a practical tip that prevents the recurring problem of "redactions" that any reader can defeat with a different display setting or a lifted overlay.

Common questions

Why doesn't a redaction made on a Word document or PDF cover the underlying text?

Because many redaction tools simply place a black or gray shape over the text in the rendered document while leaving the underlying text in the file. A recipient can copy and paste, change rendering settings, or otherwise expose the text. The fix is to print the redacted page on paper or render the redacted page to an image (which flattens the rendering and discards the underlying text), then redistribute that flattened version. Most FOIA-savvy public agencies maintain a workflow that takes documents through a print/scan loop to ensure redactions are not reversible.

What is "personal contact information" under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13)?

It is the information by which someone would contact a public employee outside of their public role. Home address, home phone number, personal cell phone number, personal email address. Work-related contact information (office phone, work email, agency mailing address) is not "personal contact information" and is not exempt. The opinion specifically tells DHS that a work phone number cannot be redacted under this provision.

Could a public employee object to release of even properly classified personnel records?

The employee can object, and the AG opinion mechanism in § 25-19-105(c)(3) lets the employee request the AG's view. But the AG opinion's standard is whether the custodian's decision complies with FOIA, not whether the employee approves of the release. Where the records are properly classified as personnel records and disclosure does not violate the Young v. Rice test, the employee's objection cannot block release.

What's the difference between this opinion and the Lowell police personnel file opinion (2015-034)?

The Lowell opinion (2015-034) involved a mix of personnel records and evaluation records, with multiple problems in classification, redaction technique, and missing redactions. This opinion involves only personnel records, with just two specific problems (visible redactions and an improper work-phone redaction). The frameworks are identical; the facts are different.

What does DHS need to do in response to this opinion?

Two things. First, fix the three deficient redactions by photocopying or scanning the pages so the redacted content is fully opaque in the final version. Second, unredact the work phone number on the page listing all three phone numbers. The home phone and "other" phone redactions are fine.

Citations

Statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-103(5)(A) (definition of public record); A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exception); A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information); A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (employee-evaluation exception); A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion mechanism).

Cases: Young v. Rice (1992) (balancing test); Stilley v. McBride (1998) (public interest measurement); U.S. Dept. of Defense v. FLRA (1994) (federal analogue).

Prior AG opinions on personnel records categories: 2005-004, 95-113 (work history); 2011-013 (offer letters); 2003-060 (education); 2001-368, 2001-091, 2006-165 (resumes and references); 2003-381 (recommendation letters); 2004-225, 2012-017, 2011-125, 2007-070 (standard employee data); 1999-147 (personnel-records definition); 97-368 (typical personnel file contents); 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198 (objective nature of privacy test).

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2015-016
February 18, 2015
J. Mark White, Director
STATE OF ARKANSAS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Office of Policy and Legal Services
Department of Human Services
Post Office Box 1437, Slot S260
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1437
Dear Mr. White:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the custodian's attorney, is based on A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2013). This subsection authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of personnel or employee evaluation records to seek an opinion from this office stating whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.

Your letter indicates that someone has requested the personnel file of a current employee of the Department of Human Services. The Department has collected the responsive documents and determined what documents must be disclosed. You have also forwarded the documents the Department intends to disclose, having decided that the records are personnel records whose disclosure does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The Department has also made several redactions throughout the records. You ask whether these decisions are consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE
My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. Having reviewed the records, it is my opinion (1) that the records have been properly classified as personnel records; (2) that their disclosure is required under the FOIA because, for reasons explained below, their disclosure does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and (3) that, though most of the redactions comply with the FOIA, (a) some information has been redacted that should be unredacted and (b) some of the redacted information is still visible through the redactions.

DISCUSSION

I. General standards governing disclosure

A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if all three of the following elements are met. First, the FOIA request must be directed to an entity subject to the act. Second, the requested document must constitute a public record. Third, no exceptions allow the document to be withheld.

The first two elements are met in this case. As for the first element, the documents are held by a state agency, which is a public entity. As for the second element, the FOIA defines "public record" as:

writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium, required by law to be kept or otherwise kept, and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions which are or should be carried out by a public official or employee, a governmental agency, or any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. All records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records.

Based on my review, all of the attached documents are standard employee-intake and documentation records (e.g. job description, job application, salary information, letters confirming job offers and start dates, resumes, and references). All these documents reflect the performance of the Department's official functions, which makes these documents public records.

Therefore, these public records must be disclosed unless some specific exception provides otherwise.

II. Personnel-records exception

Under certain conditions, the FOIA exempts two groups of items normally found in employees' personnel files. For purposes of the FOIA, these items can usually be divided into two mutually exclusive groups: "personnel records" or "employee evaluation or job performance records." The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly.

When custodians assess whether either of these exceptions applies to a particular record, they must make two determinations. First, they must determine whether the record meets the definition of either exception. Second, assuming the record does meet one of the definitions, the custodian must apply the appropriate test to determine whether the FOIA requires that record be disclosed.

Because the custodian has determined that the attached documents are personnel records, I will narrow my analysis to that exception.

A. Classifying the attached documents

While the FOIA does not define the term "personnel records," this office has consistently opined that "personnel records" are all records other than employee evaluation and job performance records that pertain to individual employees.

Whether a particular record meets this definition is, of course, a question of fact that can only be definitively determined by reviewing the record itself.

This Office has consistently held that the types of records that are attached to your letter clearly qualify as personnel records. Given that they pertain to the public employee's application for, offer of, and compensation for the public position, they clearly pertain to the employee. Further, given that none of the records constitute employee-evaluation documents, the records qualify as personnel records.

B. Applying the test for disclosure

When a public record qualifies as a "personnel record," the FOIA requires that the record be disclosed unless doing so "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." While the FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," the Arkansas Supreme Court, in Young v. Rice, has provided some guidance by developing a two-part test that it uses to determine whether the release of a given personnel record would constitute such an invasion.

Under this test, courts apply a two-part balancing test that weighs the public's interest in accessing the records against the individual's interest in keeping them private. The balancing takes place with a thumb on the scale favoring disclosure.

Under the test's first part, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested document is of a personal or intimate nature such that it gives rise to a greater than de minimus privacy interest. The fact that the subject of the records may consider the records highly sensitive is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective. If the privacy interest is merely de minimus, then the thumb on the scale favoring disclosure outweighs the privacy interest and the test requires that the record be disclosed. But if the privacy interest is greater than de minimus, the custodian must determine whether that interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure. The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that the public's interest is measured by the extent to which the record's disclosure would "shed light on a[] [public entity's] performances of its statutory duties or otherwise let citizens know 'what their government is up to.'"

Applying the foregoing two-part test, this Office has consistently opined that the sort of personnel records at issue here, i.e. standard employee-intake and documentation records (e.g. job description, job application, salary information, letters confirming job offers and start dates, resumes, and references), must be disclosed under the FOIA. The information contained in such records is not of a personal or intimate nature, which means that the information does not give rise to a greater than de minimus privacy interest. Therefore, the first prong of the Young v. Rice test requires the records' disclosure. Accordingly, the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA.

III. Redactions

The custodian has redacted several pieces of information throughout the records. Though I have not been provided with unredacted copies, I can tell from the record what sort of information has been redacted. In my opinion, though most of the redactions are proper, four are not. Three of these noncompliant redactions are deficient because the redacted information is still visible through the redaction. The surest way to resolve this is to either photocopy the redacted pages, or scan them into a PDF. The fourth redaction is noncompliant because there is simply no basis for it. The latter occurs on a page that lists the current employee's phone numbers for home, work, and "other." While it is entirely appropriate to redact the home and "other" phone numbers, there is no basis in the FOIA to redact the employee's work phone number.

In summary, it is my opinion that the custodian has properly classified the attached documents as personnel records, that their disclosure is required by the FOIA, and that, though most redactions are proper, a few are not.

Assistant Attorney General Ryan Owsley prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

LR/RO:cyh