Can a Fort Smith employee block release of just her name in connection with her public-employee compensation data?

Plain-English summary

A Fort Smith employee objected to the city's decision to release her name in response to a request for 2021 employee names, salaries or compensation, hire dates, and position titles. The city planned to withhold sensitive personal information, including addresses, birth dates, telephone numbers, and Social Security information.

The Attorney General said generally that the kinds of information requested, including employee names, are “subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA.” She also agreed that sensitive personal information should be withheld. The employee's objection to release of her name was “not a legally sufficient reason under the FOIA to withhold the records.”

The Attorney General had not seen any responsive records. She therefore could not decide the release of a specific document or the need to redact a particular item. She referred the employee to an attached earlier opinion, 2022-005, for the definitions and tests governing employee-related records.

What this means for you

If you're the employee whose name was requested

An objection to disclosure of your name, without a separate legal basis for withholding it, did not change the result here. The opinion concerns a request for names alongside employment and compensation information. It does not decide whether any unseen record contains other information that must be redacted.

If you're the records custodian

The opinion supports the city's general plan to release the requested employment fields and withhold sensitive personal details. Review the responsive records before applying that plan: the Attorney General expressly reserved judgment on individual documents and redactions. Use the attached Opinion 2022-005 for the employee-record definitions and disclosure tests.

If you're requesting payroll information

This opinion supports asking for employee names with salaries, hire dates, and titles. It does not resolve a dispute over a particular record that the Attorney General did not inspect. The city still has to review for sensitive personal information.

Common questions

Q: Did the Attorney General say an employee's name can always be released?
A: No. She said generally that names and the other requested employment fields are open to inspection and copying, but she had not seen any responsive document and could not decide a specific redaction.

Q: Did the employee object to the salary or hire date?
A: The letter says she objected to release of her name. The underlying FOIA request also sought salaries or compensation, hire dates, and position titles.

Q: What information did the city plan to withhold?
A: The custodian's memorandum listed sensitive personal information “such as address, date of birth, telephone number, or social security information.” The Attorney General agreed with withholding sensitive personal information in general.

Background and statutory framework

The employee asked for review under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The opinion says this provision permits a custodian, requester, or subject of certain employee-related records to ask the Attorney General whether a release decision is consistent with the FOIA. Here the Attorney General found the custodian appeared to have applied the standards properly. She expressly referred to the attached Opinion 2022-005 for the governing definitions and tests.

Citations and references

Statute: Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).

Attached opinion: Op. Att'y Gen. 2022-005.

Source

• Official opinion search: Arkansas Attorney General opinions

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

Opinion No. 2022-009

January 24, 2022

Christi Fisher
c/o Rick Lolley, Human Resources Director
City of Fort Smith
P.O. Box 1908
Fort Smith, AR 72902

Dear Ms. Fisher:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the subject of the requested records, is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2021). 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 Fort Smith 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 2021. You have attached a memorandum from the custodian of the records in which he 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," will not be released. As the subject of the requested records, you object to the release of your name. You 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 your 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 type of information requested (employee names, salary/compensation, hire date, and position titles) is subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA. Additionally, the custodian has correctly decided that sensitive personal information is not releasable.

Please note that I have attached a previous opinion of this office, Op. Att'y Gen. 2022-005, that explains the legal standards that must be applied to determine whether the employee-related records in question must be disclosed pursuant to the FOIA. I will not repeat those standards herein, but instead refer you to the attached opinion for the applicable definitions and tests. It is my opinion that the custodian appears to have properly applied these legal standards in deciding to release the records at issue while withholding "sensitive personal information." Moreover, the objection you have raised is not a legally sufficient reason under the FOIA to withhold the records.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General

1 See Op. Att'y Gen. 2013-088 (providing this office's repeated opinion “that the public is entitled to know, via FOIA requests, the names of public employees”). See also Op. Att'y Gen. 2011-156.