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

The City of Sherwood received the same FOIA request many other Arkansas cities received in mid-2021: salary, hire date, position titles, and names of all employees for 2020. The custodian classified the records as personnel records and decided to release them with sensitive personal information redacted. Ten of the named employees jointly objected, specifically to the release of their names.

The AG agreed with the custodian. Names of public employees are part of the personnel record. The Young v. Rice balancing test favors disclosure of compensation records, including the names attached to those records, when the records shed light on how the city spends public money. The custodian's plan to redact sensitive personal information (home address, date of birth, phone, social security number) before release was correct.

The opinion underscores that an employee's discomfort about being named alongside their salary is not a legal basis to keep the name confidential. Public employee names linked to public compensation are public information.

What this means for you

Public employees concerned about being named

You cannot block release of your name when the city releases salary data, even if multiple employees object. The reason: the public's interest in linking compensation to specific employees (so taxpayers can see who is paid what) outweighs an individual privacy interest in being unnamed. Discomfort about being named in a salary record is not a recognized privacy interest under Young v. Rice.

What you do get: the standard required redactions for sensitive personal information (home address, DOB, phone, SSN, banking, medical, etc.).

FOIA custodians

When multiple employees object, the analysis does not change. The records are still personnel records, the test is still Young v. Rice balancing, and the result is still release with standard redactions. Document each employee's notification and the custodian's response.

Citizens and journalists

This opinion confirms that employee names are part of the public salary record. If a city tries to redact names, the opinion is direct authority for the contrary position.

Common questions

What if an employee has a personal safety concern about being named?

That can be a separate analysis. A genuine safety concern (e.g., a domestic violence survivor whose name with employment information could be used to find them) might support some redaction, but it requires concrete facts beyond ordinary discomfort. The custodian would have to weigh that specific privacy interest against the public's interest in disclosure.

Can the city release just salary and title, redacting all names?

That defeats the purpose of the request and is not the standard practice. The opinion's logic is that the public interest in linking compensation to people is part of why the records are public. Aggregate or anonymized data is generally not what FOIA requires; the named records are.

Do undercover officers get name protection?

Yes, under § 25-19-105(b)(10). The opinion lists undercover officer identifying information among the standard required redactions. If you are a sworn officer working undercover, your identity in personnel records can be redacted.

Background and statutory framework

Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12) are exempt only when release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992), supplies the two-step balancing test, with the scale tipped toward disclosure. The AG has consistently treated names of public employees as releasable when attached to disclosable compensation data.

The required redactions list (§ 25-19-105(b)(13) and AG opinion catalog) does not include names of public employees as a category. Names go out; sensitive personal information stays in.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (required redactions)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(10) (undercover officer protection)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion procedure)
• Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435 (2007)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306 (1998)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66

Source

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

Original opinion text

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 Avenue
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 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.

DISCUSSION

The custodian has classified the requested records as personnel records. I have no information to suggest that the custodian's decision to classify them as personnel records is incorrect. Records of employees' salaries, hire dates, position titles, and names likely constitute personnel records.

Personnel records under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) are open to public inspection and copying except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice provides the balancing test that weighs the public's interest in accessing the records against the individual's privacy interest, with the scale tipped in favor of disclosure. The custodian's decision to release the records with sensitive personal information redacted is consistent with the FOIA.

A FOIA requester's identity or motive for making the request is generally irrelevant to whether a record must be released. 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,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General