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

Plain-English summary

This is the fourth of four parallel AG opinions issued in January 2022 to Fort Smith employees who objected to the city's planned release of 2021 compensation records. Christi Fisher's objection was the narrowest of the four: she objected specifically to release of her name. The other items in the request (salary, hire date, position title) were not the focus of her objection.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge concluded the custodian's decision to release names along with the rest of the requested data was consistent with Arkansas FOIA. A public employee's name, tied to public compensation, is routinely releasable: it is the link that lets a member of the public connect a salary line to an actual person who is being paid out of public funds. Without the name, the data cannot serve its accountability purpose. The narrow objection (just the name) does not survive Young v. Rice balancing because the privacy interest in a name (which is widely available publicly anyway) is at most de minimis, and the public interest in being able to identify a specific public employee being paid a specific salary is substantial.

The AG attached and incorporated Op. Att'y Gen. 2022-005, which sets out the full legal framework. The other three parallel opinions in this Fort Smith series (2022-005 from Jane Ann Cantrell, 2022-007 from Meredith McGary, 2022-008 from Tracy Koleszar-Burbee) reach the same conclusion on slightly different objections.

What this means for you

If you're a public employee considering an objection

A pure name-only objection is unlikely to succeed. Names are not "personal or intimate" in the Young v. Rice sense, especially when paired with public salary data: that pairing is the whole point of a public-records compensation request. Objections that cite specific privacy harms (stalking concerns, undercover law-enforcement work, witness protection) might fare differently because they tap into actual statutory protections, but a generalized objection to having one's name appear on a public payroll list typically does not.

If you're a custodian releasing employee compensation data

Including the employee's name is the default. If you have a specific reason to redact a name (an undercover officer under § 25-19-105(b)(10), or some other narrow statutory ground), document it. Otherwise, names go out with the rest of the personnel record.

If you're a journalist or requester

Compensation requests are most useful when names are included, because that's how stories like "city paid manager $X while position was vacant" get reported. Custodians who try to redact names in routine compensation releases are violating the FOIA; cite this opinion plus 2022-005.

Common questions

Q: Can my name appear on the city's public payroll list?
A: Yes. Public employee names are public records when tied to public-employment information. There are narrow exceptions (undercover officers, certain protected witness scenarios), but a general payroll list is releasable.

Q: What if my safety is genuinely at risk?
A: Then the objection is not "I don't want my name out" but "I have a specific safety concern that maps to a statutory protection." For example, if you are a domestic violence survivor with a court-ordered address protection, the address would already be redacted. Specific safety statutes can sometimes pull additional information out, but a general fear is not enough.

Q: Could the city refuse to release if all four record subjects objected?
A: No. The four record subjects' objections, individually or collectively, are not statutory exceptions. The custodian still has to apply the Young v. Rice test objectively. As the AG observed in 2022-005, the subject's view is irrelevant to the analysis.

Background and statutory framework

This opinion is the fourth in a coordinated series. Four City of Fort Smith employees each filed a separate request under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) within a few days of each other, and the AG issued four near-parallel opinions: 2022-005 (Cantrell, full framework), 2022-007 (McGary, "improper purpose" objection), 2022-008 (Koleszar-Burbee, "unknown purpose" objection), and 2022-009 (Fisher, "name only" objection). All four reached the same conclusion: the custodian's release plan, with redaction of sensitive personal information, was consistent with the FOIA.

The legal framework is in Op. Att'y Gen. 2022-005, which this opinion attaches and incorporates. Young v. Rice sets the test for "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" in personnel records: greater than de minimis privacy interest, weighed against public interest, with the scale tipped toward disclosure. Names are routinely held to be at most de minimis on the privacy side and are released with the underlying compensation data.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq. (Arkansas FOIA)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (record subject's right to AG opinion)

AG opinions in the same series:

• Op. Att'y Gen. 2022-005 (Cantrell, foundational framework)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2022-007 (McGary, "improper purpose" objection)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2022-008 (Koleszar-Burbee, "unknown purpose" objection)

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. 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