Can a Little Rock job applicant block release of his application under Arkansas FOIA by objecting on privacy grounds?

Plain-English summary

This is a short companion opinion to AG Op. 2020-021. Both arose from the same FOIA request: a member of the public asked the City of Little Rock for "all applications for anyone who applied for a position in our Public Works department from June 2019 to present." Lutricia Abdullah, like Myia Woods (the subject in 2020-021), was a records subject and objected to the release. She asked AG Leslie Rutledge to review the custodian's decision under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).

The custodian had determined that Abdullah's job application was a personnel record subject to release after redacting sensitive personal information (DOB, SSN, and similar items).

Rutledge stated that, in her opinion, the custodian's decision to release the record was consistent with FOIA. Rather than re-stating the analysis, she enclosed Op. 2020-021 (which had been issued two days earlier on the same custodian decision and the same statutory question) and referred Abdullah to that opinion for the substantive reasoning. Op. 2020-021 walks through the standard Arkansas FOIA personnel-records framework: classification under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12), the Young v. Rice two-step balancing test, the standard list of items that must be redacted, and the rule that the records subject's subjective objection is not by itself a sufficient basis to withhold otherwise disclosable records.

The substantive answer for Abdullah is the same as for Woods: release the application with the standard redactions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. 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.

Common questions

Why is this opinion so short?
Because the AG had just issued Op. 2020-021 two days earlier for an identical FOIA matter (same custodian, same request, different records subject). Rather than copy-paste the framework analysis, she incorporated 2020-021 by reference and gave the same conclusion. For the substantive analysis, see 2020-021.

Where can I find the full reasoning?
In the companion opinion 2020-021. Both opinions arose from the same custodian decision (City of Little Rock release of Public Works job applications with standard redactions). 2020-021 contains the framework discussion; 2020-022 applies it to a different subject who objected on the same grounds.

Was the rationale different because Abdullah was a different person?
No. The custodian's release decision was the same, the records were the same type, and the AG's review under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is on whether the custodian's decision is consistent with FOIA, not whether each individual subject's objection has merit. The answer was therefore the same.

Background and statutory framework

The procedural and substantive framework is identical to that of 2020-021. The procedural hook is Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The substantive rule is that personnel records under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) are presumptively releasable, subject to the two-step Young v. Rice balancing test (does the document raise a greater than de minimis privacy interest, and if so, does that outweigh the public's interest, with the scale tipped toward disclosure). The records subject's subjective view of disclosure is not part of the calculation.

Citations

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019) (AG opinion review)

Cases:

• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)

Companion opinion (incorporated by reference):

• AG Op. 2020-021 (April 20, 2020) (Woods, same City of Little Rock FOIA request, same release decision)

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. 2020-022
April 22, 2020

Lutricia Abdullah
c/o Sandy Edgar, FOIA Coordinator
City of Little Rock, Human Resources
500 West Markham, Suite 130W
Little Rock, AR 72201-1428

Dear Ms. Abdullah:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the subject of the requested record, is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019). This subdivision authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related 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 City of Little Rock has received a request under the FOIA for copies of "all applications for anyone who applied for a position in our Public Works department from June 2019 to present." The custodian of records has determined that the requested document is a personnel record that is releasable after all sensitive personal information, such as date of birth or Social Security number, has been redacted. You ask whether the records custodian's decision to release the requested record as redacted is consistent with 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 the requested record is consistent with the FOIA. Please see the enclosed Attorney General Opinion 2020-021, which explains the basis for this conclusion. I will not restate that explanation herein, but instead refer you to the enclosed opinion for the substantive analysis.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General

Enclosure: AG Op. 2020-021 (April 20, 2020)