Can ten Sherwood city employees keep their names out of a FOIA release of salary, hire date, position title, and employee name data?

Plain-English summary

Ten Sherwood employees asked the AG to review the city’s proposed release of 2020 employee salary, hire-date, title, and name records. They objected to release of their names. The custodian classified the responsive documents as personnel records and planned to release them after redacting sensitive personal information.

The AG had not seen the records and could not decide release or redaction of any specific document. She said generally that the bulk of the requested salary, hire-date, title, and name information was open to inspection and copying, and that the custodian correctly identified sensitive personal information as not releasable.

The official PDF includes a longer general redaction list than the earlier API text. It covers personal contact details, birth dates, Social Security numbers, medical and banking information, and identifying information about certain officers currently working undercover. The opinion does not apply each item to an actual Sherwood document.

What this means for you

If you are a records custodian

Classify each responsive document and apply the personnel-records privacy balance. The AG considered the requested compensation and job information generally open, subject to redaction of protected details. Her letter does not clear every document for release without review.

If you are an employee or requester

The general answer favors disclosure of the requested compensation and job information. The custodian still must review the actual records for information that should be withheld.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2021. Verify current Arkansas law before applying its disclosure rules.

Common questions

Did the AG decide which specific records should be released? No. She had not seen the responsive documents and could not rule on a particular document or redaction.

Were employee names included in the generally releasable information? Yes. The AG expressly listed employee names with compensation, hire dates, and position titles as the bulk of information subject to inspection and copying.

What sensitive information did the opinion identify?
The custodian's examples were addresses, birth dates, phone numbers, and Social Security information. The PDF's general discussion adds other protected details, including identifying information about certain officers currently working undercover.

Did the AG decide a special safety claim for these employees? No. The opinion supplies general disclosure standards and does not apply a separate safety exception to the requested records.

Background and statutory framework

The AG described salary, hire-date, title, and name records as likely personnel records. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12), the custodian applies a privacy balance. The opinion left individual document review to the custodian.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)

Source

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

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
T1-1E ArronNEY GENrnAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

Opinion No. 2021-044

June 14, 2021

Steven Bain
Brian Galloway
David Jones
Charles Moseley
Josh Penland
Belinda Shaw
Tracy Sims
John Unzicker
Shane Wilkins
Tonya Wood
c/o Jill Ross, Director of Human Resources
City of Sherwood
2199 East Kiehl A venue
Sherwood, AR 72120

Dear Mses. Shaw, Sims, and Wood, and Messrs. Bain, Galloway, Jones, Moseley, Penland, Unzicker, and Wilkins:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your requests, which are made as the subjects of the requested records, are 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 Sherwood has received a request under the FOIA for "records regarding the salary/compensation, hire date, position titles and names of any and all employees for the year 2020." You have attached a memorandum from the custodian of the records in which she has determined that the requested records are personnel records that are releasable pursuant to the FOIA, but that "sensitive personal information, such as address, date of birth, telephone

323 C ENTER STR EET. SU IT E 200 •LITTL E ROCK , ARKA N SA S 72 201 TEL EPHO N E (50 I) 682-2007 • FAX (50 I) 682-8084 I NTER N ET W EBSITE. http://www.ag .state. ar.u s/

Bain, et al.
c/o Jill Ross, Director or Human Resources
Opinion No. 2021-044
Page 2

number, or social security information," is not releasable. As the subjects of the requested records, you object to the release of your names and ask whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of the records is consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

Because I have not seen any records that would be responsive to the FOIA request, I cannot opine about the releasability 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 bulk of the information requested (salary/compensation, hire date, position titles, and employee names) is subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA. Additionally, the custodian has correctly decided that sensitive personal information is not releasable.

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 "employee evaluation or job performance'' records. It is the responsibility of the custodian, in the first instance, to properly classify the specific responsive records and apply the applicable test for 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.

The first two elements appear to be met. The request was made to the City of Sherwood, which is a public entity and is subject to the FOIA. Moreover, the request appears to pertain to public records. 1 Because the records are held by a

1
The FOIA defines public records 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 that constitute a record or the performance or lack of performance of official functions ... carried out by a public official or employee .... " Ark. Code Ann.~ 25-19-103(7)(A) (Supp. 2019).

Bain, ct al.
c/o Jill Ross, Director of Human Resources
Opinion No. 2021-044
Page 3

public entity, they are presumed to be public records, 2 although that presumption is rebuttable. 3 Accordingly, given that I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, the analysis proceeds to the third element, that is, whether any exceptions preclude disclosure.

II. Exceptions to disclosure.

Under certain conditions, the FOIA exempts two groups of items normally found in employees' personnel liles. 4 For purposes of the FOIA, these items can usually be divided into two mutually exclusive groups: "personnel records" 5 or ··employee evaluation or job performance records. " 6 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

2 Id

3
See Pulaski Cly. v. Ark. De111ocrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440-41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722 (2007) ("the presumption of public record status established by the FOi/\ can be rebutted if the records do not otherwise fall within the definition found in the first sentence, i.e., if they do not 'constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions,"' citing Op. Att 'y Gen. 2005-095 ).

1
· This office and the leading commentators on the FOIA have observed that personnel files usually include: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents, such as information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health and life insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records; requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal documents, such as subpoenas. E.g., Op. Att'y Gen. 97-368; John J. Watkins, Richard J. Peltz-Steele & Robert Steinbuch, Tiii· ARKi\NS/\S FRl:l·:DOM OF INFOIUvlAI ION Al'l 205-06 (Arkansas Law Press, 6th ed., 2017).

5
/\rk. Code /\nn. ~ 25-19-105(b)(l2): "It is the specific intent of this section that the following shall not be deemed to be made open to the public under the provisions of this chapter ....
[pJersonnel records to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of persona I privacy."

1
'Ark. Code Ann. ~ 25-19-105(c}( I): ''Notwithstanding subdivision (b}( 12) of this section, all employee evaluation or job performance records, including preliminary notes and other materials, shall be open to public inspection only upon final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination proceeding at which the records form a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee and if there is a compelling public interest in their disclosure."

Bain, et al.
c/o Jill Ross, Director of Human Resources
Opinion No. 2021-044
Page 4

meet one or the definitions, the custodian must apply the appropriate test to determine whether the FOIA requires that record be disclosed.
a. Personnel-records exception.

The first of the two most relevant potential exceptions is the one for .. personnel records," which the FOIA does not define. But this office has consistently opined that "personnel records" are all records other than .. employee evaluation or job- performance records" that pertain to individual employees. 7 Whether a particular record meets this definition is 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. " 8

While the FOIA does not define the phrase .. clearly unwarranted invasion or personal privacy," the Arkansas Supreme Court, in Young v. Rice, 9 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 the scale tipped in favor of disclosure. 10

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. 11 If the privacy interest is merely de minim is, 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. 1 ~

7
,\'ee, e.g., Ops. Att 'y Gen. 20 I 5-072, 99-14 7~ Watkins, <!f ul., at 202.

8
Ark. Code Ann.~ 25-19-105(b)( 12).

') 308 Ark. 593, 826 S. W .2d 252 ( 1992 ).

111
Watkins, el ul., at 208.

11 ro1111g, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S. w .2d at 255.

12
Id., 826 S.W.2d at 255.

Bain, et al.
c/o .Jill Ross, Director of Human Resources
Opinion No. 2021-044
Page 5

Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the person resisting disclosure bears the burden or showing that, under the circumstances, his privacy interests outweigh the public's interests. 13 The fact that the subject of records may consider release or the records an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective. 14

Whether any particular personnel record's release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is always a question of fact. 15 Additionally, a requester's identity or motive for making a request under the FOlA is generally irrelevant as to whether a non-exempt public record must be released. 16 Again, the test under the FOlA for the release of personnel records asks whether, as an o~jective matter, the records in question shed light on the workings of government for the general public. 17 This ordinarily precludes the custodian from considering any subjective motives or the identity or a requester when making the determinations whether a record must be disclosed or withheld. 18

Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain discrete pieces of information that have to be redacted. Some items that must be redacted include:

1.1Stilley1•. AicBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 ( 1998).

11
E.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198; Watkins, et al., at 207.

15
Ops. Att'y Gen. 2006-176, 2004-260, 2003-336, 98-00 I.

1
" Ops. Att'y Gen. 2019-036, 2018-125, 2014-094, 2012-014, 2011-107.

17
See Ops. ;\tt'y Gen. 2019-047, 2018-061.

18
See Ops. Att'y Gen. 2018-087, 2018-061; see also Op. i\tt'y Gen. 2014-094 (noting that "neither the Arkansas Legislature nor our appellate courts have allowed custodians to consider the subjective motive of the requester."). While the requester's suhjective motive cannot be the basis for the decision, it can be considered by the custodian to determine whether it supplies an objective public interest previously unseen. Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-094 at n.8.

It should also be noted that the Legislature has not seen fit to include a generalized "harassment" exemption to the release or otherwise disc losable employee-related records. Op. Att'y Gen. 2019- 04 7 (and op in ions cited therein).

Bain, ct al.
c/o Jill Ross, Director of Human Resources
Opinion No. 2021-044
Page 6

• Personal contact information of public employees, including personal telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, and home addresses (Ark.
Code Ann.~ 25-19-105(b)(l3));

• Employee personnel number (Ops. Att'y Gen. 2014-094, 2007-070);
• Marital status of employees and information about dependents (Op. Att'y Gen. 2001-080 );
• Dates of birth of public employees (Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-064);
• Social security numbers (Ops. Att'y Gen. 2006-035, 2003-153 );
• Medical information (Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-153 );
• Any information identifying certain law enforcement officers currently working undercover (Ark. Code Ann.~ 25-19-105(b)(IO));
• Driver's license number and photocopy of driver's license (Ops. Att 'y Gen.
  2017-125, 2013-090);
• Insurance coverage (Op. Att'y Gen. 2004-167);
• 'fax information or withholding (Ops. Att 'y Gen. 2005-194, 2003-385 );
• Payroll deductions (Op. Att 'y Gen. 98-126 ); and • Banking information (Op. Att'y Gen. 2005-194 ).
  b. Employee-evaluation exception.

The second potentially relevant exception is for .. employee evaluation or job performance records," which the FOIA likewise docs not deline. 19 But the Arkansas Supreme Court has adopted this ortice's view that the term refers to any records (I) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the employee (3) that detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job. 20 This exception includes records generated while investigating allegations of employee misconduct that detail incidents that gave rise to an allegation or misconduct. 21

11
' I will refer to this group of reeords as .. employee-evaluation records.'"

211
Tho11ws \'. Ila/I, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S. W .3d 3 87. See also Ops. Att 'y Gen. 2009-06 7, 2008-004, 2007-225, 2006-038, 2005-030, 2003-073, 98-006, 97-222, 95-351, 94-306, and 93-055.

21
T/1011ws, 2012 Ark. 66, at 9-10, 399 S. W .3d at 392-93.

Bain, et al.
c/o Jill Ross, Director of I luman Resources
Opinion No. 2021-044
Page 7

Additionally, some employee-related records constitute "mixed records," i.e., records that constitute (I) more than one person's evaluation, (2) at least one person's evaluation and at least one other person's personnel record, or (3) more than one person's personnel record. 22

If a document meets the above definition, the document cannot be released unless all the following clements have been met:

I. The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);
2. There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination proceeding (i.e., finality);
3. The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., basis); and 4. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure or the records in question (i.e., compelling intercst).n

As for the final prong, the FOIA never defines the key phrase "compelling public interest." But the leading commentators on the FOIA, referring to this ollice's opinions, have offered the following guidelines:
ll]t seems that the following factors should be considered in determining whether a compelling public interest is present: (I) the nature or the infraction that led to suspension or termination, with particular concern as to whether violations of the public trust or gross incompetence are involved; (2) the existence or a public controversy related to the agency and its employees; and (3) the employee's position within the agency. In short, a general interest in the performance of public employees should not be considered compelling, because that concern, at least theoretically, always exists.
However, a link between a given public controversy, an agency associated with the controversy in a speci lie way, and an employee within the agency who commits a serious breach of public trust should be suflicient to satisfy the "compelling public interest" requirement. 2-1

22
Sl!I! Op. Att'y Gen. 2020-037 (and opinions cited therein).

21
· Ark. Code Ann. s 25-19-105(c)( I)~ Op. Att'y Gen. 2008-065. 21
• Watkins, I!! al., at 238-39 (footnotes omitted).

Bain, et al.
c/o Jill Ross, Director of Human Resources
Opinion No. 2021-044
Page 8

These commentators also note that "the status of the employee" or "his rank within the bureaucratic hierarchy" may be relevant in determining whether a "compelling public interest" exists, 25 which is always a question of fact that must be determined, in the first instance, by the custodian alter he considers all the relevant information.

The primary purpose of this exception is to preserve the confidentiality of the formal job-evaluation process in order to promote honest exchanges m the employee/employer relationship. 26

III. Application.

When dealing with employee-related records, custodians must make two determinations in the first instance: (I) whether the records meet the definition of the two kinds of employment records discussed above; and (2) if so, whether under the specific circumstances, the FOIA requires the employment records be released based on the applicable test for disclosure. The custodian in this case has determined that the requested records are personnel records. Although I have not seen the records, I have no information to suggest that the custodian's decision to classify them as personnel records is incorrect. Indeed, I can state generally that records of employees' salaries, hire dates, position titles, and names likely constitute personnel records. 27

The custodian has determined that the requested records arc subject to release, but that "sensitive personal information, such as address, date or birth, telephone number, or social security information" is not releasable. While I cannot opine on the release of any specific records here, I can state that the bulk of the information requested (salary/compensation, hire date, position titles, and employee names) is subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA. 28 I can also state that the custodian has correctly decided that sensitive personal information is not releasable.

5
-'Id. at 237 (noting that '"[a]s a practical matter, such an interest is more likely to be present when a high-level employee is involved than when the [records] of ·rank-and-1ile' workers are at issue"). 1
-' ' Cf Op. Att'y Gen. 96-168; Watkins, et al., at 223.
7
-' See, e.g., Op. Att'y Gen. 2009-204.

28
S'ee Op. Att'y Gen. 2008-129 (and opinions cited therein).

Bain, et al.
c/o Jill Ross, Director of Human Resources
Opinion No. 2021-044
Page 9

Additionally, the custodian has noted that employee evaluation records are not releasable ··unless they form the basis of a suspension or termination and only if they have reached their final administrative resolution." As long as the other two prongs of the test set out above are met, 29 that decision is also consistent with the FOIA.

Finally, as noted above, a FOIA requester's identity or motive for making the request is generally irrelevant to whether a record must be released.-rn The test under the FOIA for the release of personnel records asks whether, as an objective matter, the records in question shed light on the workings of government for the general public. The custodian's analysis cannot be based on a requester's identity or subjective motive for wanting the record.

Sincerely,

< . ~~ :;>_ L. /./~.,,,
( ,ESLIE RUTLl~DGE
Attorney General

1
-'' Supm test accompanying n.23.

311
S111>ra n. I 8.