Is a Camden suspension letter that doesn't list the grounds a personnel record that must be disclosed under FOIA?
Plain-English summary
The City of Camden received a FOIA request for a former employee's personnel file. The file contained a letter of suspension. The custodian (the city attorney, Michael Frey) intended to release a redacted version of the letter. The former employee objected. Frey asked the AG to review.
The opinion is short and applies a settled rule: a suspension letter without the grounds for the suspension is a personnel record, not an evaluation record. As a personnel record, it is releasable unless the Young v. Rice balancing test shows that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Here, that test is met for disclosure, so the custodian's decision to release is consistent with FOIA.
The classification rule matters. A letter that simply notifies an employee of a suspension (effective date, length, contact for follow-up) is administrative housekeeping. A letter that states why the suspension was imposed (specific incidents, policy violations) becomes a window into the employer's evaluation of the employee. The first is a personnel record. The second is an evaluation record subject to the four-part disclosure test (which is harder to meet). Arkansas custodians and HR offices that want to keep options open often issue bare-bones suspension letters precisely to keep them in the personnel-records category.
The subject's objection here does not block release. The opinion does not detail the grounds for the objection (and the AG didn't review redaction quality because no one asked), but the rule from prior opinions (e.g., Op. 2023-073) is clear: a subject's general objection is not enough; the objection must point to a specific exemption.
What this means for you
Records custodians
When a suspension letter comes up in a FOIA request, do the classification first. Read the letter and ask: does it state the grounds for the suspension, or just the fact?
- If it just states the fact (effective date, duration, who to contact), it is a personnel record. Apply the Young balancing test. Standard administrative content rarely exceeds the "clearly unwarranted invasion" bar, so release is usually required.
- If it states the grounds (specific incidents, policy violations), it is an evaluation record. Apply the four-part test (suspension or termination, finality, relevance, compelling interest). Withhold unless all four are met.
Don't try to game the classification. If the underlying facts are documented elsewhere (in the investigative file, in disciplinary memos), the FOIA analysis still applies to those documents. The only way to keep evaluation-record content private is to ensure each element of the four-part test is genuinely not met (most often, by ensuring the discipline is not yet final or has been administratively reversed).
HR and disciplinary process designers
If your standard suspension letter recites the grounds, you have classified your suspension letters as evaluation records. That has downstream effects: more procedural burden on FOIA review, more chance of withholding in the short term, but also more chance of release once the four-part test is met (especially when the position is high-trust like law enforcement). Choose the format with eyes open.
If your standard letter is bare-bones, document the grounds elsewhere (an internal memo to the file). The substance survives even if the letter is brief.
Subjects of suspension letters facing FOIA review
A bare suspension letter is harder to keep private than a detailed one (paradoxically), because it lacks evaluation-record content that would trigger the four-part test. To object effectively, you have to either:
- Identify a specific exempt item inside the letter (medical information, social security number, personal contact details). The custodian can redact those.
- Argue that release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Young. This is a heavy lift for routine administrative content.
A general objection ("I don't want this released") is not enough.
Municipal attorneys
When advising a custodian, walk through both the classification and the balancing/four-part analysis on paper. Document your reasoning. If the custodian's decision is challenged, the AG will look at the reasoning, not just the conclusion.
FOIA requesters
When you receive a suspension letter through FOIA, look at what is on it. If it is bare-bones, the underlying facts may be in other documents (investigative reports, disciplinary memos). Submit follow-up requests for those documents. The custodian's classification of one document does not control the analysis for others.
Common questions
The suspension letter says "30-day suspension, effective Monday." Is that releasable?
Yes, that is a classic personnel record (no grounds stated). The balancing test almost always favors disclosure for content like this. The minor privacy interest in the fact of a suspension does not exceed the public-interest bar.
The suspension letter says "30-day suspension for excessive absenteeism." Is that releasable?
Now you are in evaluation-record territory because the letter states the grounds. The four-part test applies. The employee was suspended (yes, by definition). Administrative finality? Depends on whether internal appeals are pending. Relevance? The letter ties the discipline to the absenteeism. Compelling interest? Probably not for absenteeism alone, unless tied to some larger public concern. So release is uncertain.
Can I FOIA-request my own suspension letter?
Yes. As the subject, you may also ask the AG (under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)) to review whether the custodian's release decision is consistent with FOIA when someone else requests your records.
The letter has been redacted. Can I see the unredacted version?
You can ask the AG to review redactions, but the custodian must have asked you about that issue specifically. In this opinion, the AG noted that neither the subject nor the custodian asked about the redaction, so the AG didn't opine on it. If you want a redaction-quality review, frame your AG request that way.
My suspension was overturned on appeal. Does that change anything?
Possibly. If the suspension was overturned and there is no live discipline, the records may not constitute an evaluation record under the four-part test (the "suspension or termination" element refers to discipline that has occurred and reached finality). For personnel-records analysis, the absence of live discipline can shift the privacy balance.
Background and statutory framework
The personnel-records exemption is at A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). The classification rule for suspension letters traces back through Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2012-073, 2011-161, and many earlier opinions: a suspension letter without grounds is a personnel record; a letter stating grounds is an evaluation record (Op. 2014-084).
The Young v. Rice balancing test (308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)) governs personnel-records disclosure. The Arkansas Supreme Court's adoption of the AG's evaluation-records definition came in Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387.
The subject-request mechanism in § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) authorizes the custodian, requester, or subject to ask the AG to review the custodian's release decision.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exemption)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (custodian/requester/subject right to AG review)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2012-073, 2011-161 (suspension letters without grounds are personnel records)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2009-210, 2009-067 (personnel records balancing test application)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2023-069
August 3, 2023
Mr. Michael W. Frey
City Attorney
325 Jefferson SW
Camden, Arkansas 71701
Dear Mr. Frey:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the custodian of the records, is based on A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The FOIA 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.
The City of Camden received a request under the FOIA for a former employee's personnel file, which contains a letter of suspension. The former employee objects to your decision to release a redacted version of that letter. You have requested my opinion on whether your decision to release the redacted letter is consistent with the FOIA.
This office has consistently opined that a letter of suspension is a personnel record when the letter does not recite the grounds for the suspension. Since this letter does not recite the grounds for the suspension, the custodian has properly classified it as a personnel record. Such records must be disclosed unless doing so constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In my opinion, this test requires that the letter be disclosed. Therefore, I believe the custodian's decision to disclose this letter is consistent with the FOIA.
(Because I have not been provided with an unredacted copy of the letter of suspension, I cannot opine on whether the redaction is proper. Neither the subject nor the custodian has asked whether the redaction is proper.)
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General