Can a school district employee block release of her personnel file under the Arkansas FOIA because the requester has been harassing her?

Plain-English summary

Terri Whitt, a Little Rock School District employee, learned that someone had filed a FOIA request for her "personnel documents and disciplinary records." The records custodian decided to release the file after redacting personal contact information (Social Security number, home addresses, personal phone numbers, personal email addresses). Whitt objected to release because the requester had made allegations against her and sent harassing emails, and she was concerned about what he might do with her records.

The AG concluded the custodian's decision was generally consistent with the FOIA. The opinion did not review the actual records (those were not provided), so the AG laid out the general framework rather than making document-specific findings. Two key principles drove the result:

1. No harassment exception. The General Assembly has not created a generalized "harassment exception" to FOIA disclosure of otherwise non-exempt personnel records (citing Op. Att'y Gen. 2013-080).

2. Requester motive is irrelevant. Custodians generally cannot consider why someone is requesting records when deciding whether to release them (citing Ops. Att'y Gen. 2014-094 and 2013-073). A subject's discomfort with the requester is not a basis for withholding.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. 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 the AG framework looks like

For employment-related records, Arkansas FOIA splits the universe into:

Personnel records (open unless clearly unwarranted privacy invasion under Young v. Rice balancing). The thumb is on the scale toward disclosure. The privacy interest must be greater than de minimis to even compete; even then, it must outweigh the public's interest in disclosure.

Employee evaluation or job performance records (closed unless all four prongs of § 25-19-105(c)(1) are satisfied: suspension/termination, final administrative resolution, basis, compelling public interest).

Even when a personnel record is releasable, certain items must always be redacted:

• Personal contact information (home address, personal phone, personal email): § 25-19-105(b)(13).
• Employee personnel number.
• Marital status and dependents.
• Date of birth.
• Social security number.
• Medical information.
• Identifying info for currently undercover law enforcement: § 25-19-105(b)(10).
• Driver's license number.
• Insurance coverage.
• Tax info or withholding.
• Payroll deductions.
• Banking information.

The Little Rock School District's redactions covered the personal contact category. The AG did not opine on whether other items needing redaction might also appear in the records.

Common questions

The requester is harassing me. Why can't the custodian withhold my file?
Because the General Assembly has not created a harassment exception, and Arkansas Supreme Court doctrine treats privacy balancing as objective (the subject's preference does not control). A custodian who withholds based on the requester's identity or motive risks an adverse FOIA enforcement action.

What about restraining orders or no-contact orders against the requester?
The AG opinion does not address this directly. Such orders might affect what the requester can do with the records (and could be raised in a court order to seal or restrict use), but they generally do not give the custodian authority to withhold otherwise releasable records under FOIA.

Can I redact my home address from my own personnel file?
Yes, under § 25-19-105(b)(13), home addresses, personal phone numbers, and personal email addresses must be redacted. That protection runs by operation of law, not subject objection.

What if the records contain disciplinary action against me?
Disciplinary action records are typically employee-evaluation records, which have the four-prong test. If you were not suspended or terminated, those records generally cannot be released. If you were, the records may be releasable depending on the four prongs.

The requester just wants to embarrass me. Doesn't that matter?
No, generally. Op. Att'y Gen. 2013-073 explains that motive is irrelevant. The exception is narrow situations where motive bears on a specific exemption (for example, certain crime victim privacy contexts).

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas FOIA's statutory text (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq.) creates broad disclosure rights with narrow exemptions. The Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that exemptions are narrowly construed (Stilley v. McBride) and that the privacy balancing test is objective (per a long line of AG opinions: 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198).

The "subject's discomfort" issue keeps recurring in AG opinions, and the answer is consistently the same: subject objection alone cannot override release. Privacy interests must be objectively assessed against the public interest, with the thumb on the scale toward disclosure. The harassment context does not move that needle as a categorical matter.

The AG's only specific approval here is at the general level: redacting personal contact information from personnel records is consistent with FOIA. Document-specific findings (whether other items need additional redaction, whether some records should be classified as evaluation records) are the custodian's call in the first instance, with potential AG or court review.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information mandatory redaction)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation-records four-prong test)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG advisory opinion authority)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2013-080 (no harassment exception)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-094, n.8; 2013-073 (requester motive irrelevant)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2018-010
January 31, 2018
Terri Whitt
c/o Rhonda Langrell Benton, SPHR, SHRM-SCP, CLRP
Director, Human Resources Department
Little Rock School District
810 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201

Dear Ms. Whitt:

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. 2017). 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 correspondence indicates that the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") has received a FOIA request for your "personnel documents and disciplinary records." The records custodian has determined that "your personnel file should be disclosed" after redacting "all personal contact information, including but not limited to: [S]ocial [S]ecurity number, home addresses, personal telephone numbers and personal email addresses, as required by law." You object to the release of your records to the individual making the request. You state that he has made certain allegations and has sent some harassing emails, and you express concern about what he might do if he obtained your records.

RESPONSE

My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. Because I have not seen any records that would be responsive to the instant FOIA request, I cannot opine about the releasabilty of any specific document or the need to redact any specific piece of information from an otherwise releasable document. I can state generally, however, that the custodian's decision to release these types of records, after redacting personal contact information, is consistent with the FOIA. I will set out the legal standards the custodian must apply to determine whether certain employee-related records must be disclosed. As explained below, these records can include both "personnel" and "evaluation" records. It is the responsibility of the custodian, in the first instance, to properly classify the responsive records and apply the applicable test for disclosure.

DISCUSSION

III. Application.

You have objected to the release of your records to the person who has made the FOIA request. You say that he has made certain allegations and has sent some harassing emails. And you say you are concerned about what he might do if he obtained your records. However, the General Assembly has not established a generalized "harassment exception" to the release of otherwise disclosable personnel records. Additionally, this office has long noted that custodians are generally not permitted to take the requester's motive for requesting the records into account. Accordingly, in my opinion, your stated objections to the release are not, standing alone, a sufficient basis for reversing the custodian's decision.

In conclusion, because I have not reviewed the actual records at issue, I cannot definitively opine on whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. But I can state generally that the custodian's decision to release these types of records, after redacting personal contact information, is consistent with the FOIA.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General