Can a retired Arkansas public-school employee block release of her old job application under FOIA, especially when the requester offers no reason?

Plain-English summary

Carol Blann, a retired Little Rock School District employee, invoked her right under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to ask the AG to review the District's decision to release a redacted copy of her old job application to a FOIA requester. The custodian had decided to release the application after redacting personal contact information and college transcripts. Blann argued that she had retired, was no longer employed, and that the requester "has no valid reason for accessing [her] records."

AG Leslie Rutledge concluded the custodian had it right. Three points:

1. Retirement does not change the FOIA analysis. The AG cited Op. Att'y Gen. 2006-182, which collects earlier opinions concluding that the FOIA's personnel-records provisions apply to former employees. The fact that the subject is no longer an employee is not, by itself, a basis to refuse the request.
2. The application is a personnel record subject to FOIA disclosure. The AG had not seen the actual application but could state the general framework. Public-employee job applications are personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12). The Young v. Rice balancing test rarely keeps them from release.
3. Standard redactions apply. The custodian should redact personal contact information (home address, personal phone number, personal email), Social Security numbers, medical information, school transcripts, dates of birth, marital status, and dependent information.

On the requester's motive: irrelevant. The FOIA does not require a requester to justify a request. If the record is a public record and no exception applies, the custodian must release it without inquiring into why the requester wants it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. 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

Former employees stay in the framework

A recurring concern from retired or separated public employees is that the FOIA should not reach them once they leave government service. The AG's office has consistently held it does. Op. Att'y Gen. 2006-182 collects earlier authorities. The reasoning is straightforward: the record exists because the person was a public employee; the FOIA reaches the record because the agency holds it; the agency's holding does not stop when the employee retires. The personnel-records exception still applies, with its same Young v. Rice balancing.

Standard redaction list

For job applications, the AG's office has identified a list of categories that should be redacted before release:

• Personal contact information (home address, personal phone, personal email)
• Social Security number (Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-153)
• Medical information (Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-153)
• School transcripts (Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-231)
• Date of birth (Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-064)
• Marital status and dependents information (Op. Att'y Gen. 2001-080)

What remains after these redactions is the professional content: employment history, qualifications, and similar information about pre-hire experience. That information has public value (it shows what the public employer hired) and rarely creates a privacy concern strong enough to overcome disclosure.

Why the requester's motive is irrelevant

The Arkansas FOIA, like most public-records laws, does not condition disclosure on the requester's reason. A nosy neighbor, a journalist, an opposing political candidate, a private investigator, and an academic researcher are all treated the same. The record is either disclosable or it is not. Stilley v. McBride put the burden of proving an exemption on the custodian, not on the requester to justify the request.

Common questions

Q: I retired from Arkansas public service ten years ago. Can someone still ask for my old job application under FOIA?
A: Yes. Retirement does not put your records outside the FOIA. The personnel-records framework still applies, and the Young v. Rice balancing test still rarely blocks release of a job application.

Q: Do I have to explain why I'm requesting someone's job application?
A: No. The FOIA does not require requesters to explain or justify their requests. The custodian decides whether the record is a public record and whether any exception applies; the requester's reasons are not part of the test.

Q: What gets redacted before my old job application is released?
A: Standard categories include home address, personal phone, personal email, Social Security number, medical information, school transcripts, date of birth, marital status, and dependent information.

Q: I gave the school district a college transcript as part of my application. Is that released too?
A: No. School transcripts in employer files are treated as exempt personnel-record content under Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-231. The custodian should redact them.

Q: What if my application includes references with their personal contact information?
A: The custodian should redact personal contact information of references, on the same theory used for the applicant's own personal contact information. The professional content (the reference's name, employer, professional capacity) is generally releasable.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.C.A. § 25-19-103(5)(A) (Supp. 2015) (definition of public record)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2015) (AG opinion procedure)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exception)

Cases:

• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998)

Source

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

Official summary

Request for review of the custodian's decision to release, with certain redactions, a former employee's application for employment, in response to a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. RESPONSE: I have not seen the job application at issue and therefore cannot opine specifically about the propriety of its release. Generally, however, the job application of a public employee is subject to public disclosure, provided that certain information may need to be deleted from the application before it is released. Among the categories of exempt information to be deleted are personal contact information (including home address and personal phone number and email), social security numbers, medical information, and school transcripts. The fact that the person is no longer an employee is not in and of itself a basis for the custodian to refuse a request for an application for employment. The job application of a successful applicant remains subject to the FOIA after an employee leaves a public agency.

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2016-025
March 14, 2016
Ms. Carol Blann
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
c/o Valerie Hudson, Executive Assistant
Office of the Deputy Superintendent
Little Rock School District
810 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Ms. Blann:
[The full text follows the AG's standard FOIA review format, applying the personnel-records framework, Young v. Rice balancing, and former-employee precedent (Op. Att'y Gen. 2006-182). The substantive analysis is summarized in the sections above.]
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General