Can a FOIA requester get the names, salaries, and years of service for University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences employees?

Plain-English summary

Three University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Respiratory Care Services employees asked the Attorney General to review a custodian's decision to release a record of their salaries since 2013 and years of service. Attorney General Leslie Rutledge concluded that release was consistent with the Arkansas FOIA. She said the record was a personnel record and that the office had consistently treated public employees' names, salaries, and dates of hire as subject to disclosure.

The opinion explains that UAMS is a public entity and that a record of these salaries and years of service is a public record. It applies the personnel-records privacy test from Young v. Rice, which balances an individual's privacy interest against the public interest in access with a thumb on the scale favoring disclosure. The requested record was limited to names, salaries, dates of hire, and the corresponding years-of-service calculation. The opinion does not address home addresses, birth dates, or other personal fields.

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.

What this means for you

UAMS employees and requesters

This opinion approved release of the three employees' names, salaries since 2013, dates of hire, and calculated years of service. An employee's preference against release does not by itself decide the privacy test; the opinion says that test is objective.

Records custodians

The AG limited her answer to the salary and service record described in the request. For a personnel record, assess whether the information creates more than a minimal privacy interest and, if so, weigh that interest against the public interest in disclosure. Do not treat this opinion as a ruling on fields it never reviewed.

Common questions

Q: Could UAMS release these employees' salaries and service history? A: Yes. The AG said releasing the requested record was consistent with the FOIA.

Q: Did the opinion decide whether home addresses or birth dates must be redacted? A: No. The request and the AG's conclusion concerned names, salaries, dates of hire, and years of service. The opinion makes no ruling on other fields.

Q: Does an employee's objection alone block release? A: No. The opinion says the personnel-records privacy balance is objective and does not turn on the employee's view that release is unwarranted.

Background and statutory framework

The AG said a document responsive to a FOIA request must be released when it is held by a covered entity, qualifies as a public record, and no exception permits withholding. She treated this salary and service record as a personnel record. Under Young v. Rice, an interest that is merely minimal is outweighed by the presumption favoring disclosure; a greater privacy interest must be weighed against the public interest. The AG concluded that this requested record could be released.

Citations and references

Statute: Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2015), authorizing review of custodian decisions.

Case: Young v. Rice, cited for the personnel-records privacy test.

Source

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

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Opinion No. 2016-103
October 12, 2016
John R. Keller, Jr., BS, RRT-ACCS, CPFT
Director, Respiratory Care Services
4301 West Markham Street, #593
Little Rock, AR 72205-7199
Janice Harris-Crawford
Respiratory Care Services
4301 W. Markham St., #593
Little Rock, AR 72205-7199
Robert Bopp, RRT
ICU Coordinator
Respiratory Care Services
4301 W. Markham St., #593
Little Rock, AR 72205-7199
Dear Ms. Harris-Crawford and Messrs. Keller and Bopp:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2015). 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.

It is my understanding that someone has made a request for your salaries from 2013 to present, as well as your years of service with the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences ("UAMS"). The custodian of records has determined that a record of this information is subject to release under the FOIA.

RESPONSE

My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. In my opinion, the custodian's decision to release this information is consistent with the FOIA. A record of this information constitutes a personnel record. And this office has consistently opined that public employees' names, salaries, and dates of hire are personnel records that are subject to disclosure.

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.

Based on my understanding of what has been requested, the first two elements appear met in this instance. As for the first element, the documents are held by UAMS, which is a public entity. As for the second element, the FOIA defines "public record" as:

[W]ritings, 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.

A record of UAMS employees' salaries and years of service plainly meets this definition of a public record and therefore would have to be disclosed unless some specific exemption under the Act provides otherwise.

II. Exemptions to disclosure.

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" and "employee evaluation or job performance records." The tests for whether these two types of documents may be released differ 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 exemption. 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.

In my opinion, the personnel-records provision is the relevant exemption in this instance. I will therefore limit my discussion to personnel records.

The FOIA does not define "personnel records." But 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. If a document meets this definition, then it is open to public inspection and copying except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

While the FOIA likewise does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," the Arkansas Supreme Court, in Young v. Rice, has provided some guidance. To determine whether the release of a personnel record would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," the Court applies a 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.

The balancing test elaborated by Young v. Rice has two steps. First, 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 minimis privacy interest. If the privacy interest is merely de minimis, then the thumb on the scale favoring disclosure outweighs the privacy interest. Second, if the information does give rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest, then the custodian must determine whether that interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure. Because the exemptions must be narrowly construed, the person resisting disclosure bears the burden of showing that, under the circumstances, his privacy interests outweigh the public's interests. The fact that the subject of any such records may consider release of the records an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective. Whether any particular personnel record's release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is always a question of fact.

III. Application.

This office has long maintained that public employees' names, salaries, and dates of hire are personnel records that are subject to disclosure. As the record at issue here is limited to your names, salaries since 2013, and dates of hire (and a corresponding calculation of your years of service), it is my opinion that the custodian's decision to release such record is consistent with the FOIA.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General