Can a former employee block release of her Arkansas personnel file by saying she does not know the requester's motive?
Plain-English summary
Ms. Shells learned that someone had submitted a FOIA request for her personnel file from her former employer. The custodian planned to release the file with redactions. Ms. Shells objected, but her stated reason for objecting was unusual: she said she did not know who the requester was, did not know why they wanted her records, and did not know what they intended to do with them.
The AG's response is short and direct: that is not a basis under Arkansas FOIA to withhold records. Under decades of consistent AG opinions and Arkansas case law, the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant to whether a public record must be disclosed. A FOIA requester does not have to explain why they want the records or what they will do with them. The custodian cannot demand a justification, and the subject of the records cannot block disclosure by pointing to the lack of one.
This is one of the most settled rules in Arkansas FOIA, but it surprises subjects of records who learn for the first time that their personnel file is about to be released to a stranger. The mental model many people have ("if you have a good reason, you get the file; if you have a bad reason, you don't") is wrong. Public records are public. The requester does not have to be a journalist, a lawyer, a researcher, or a curious neighbor. They just have to ask.
The custodian's existing redactions (for personal contact information, sensitive privacy items, etc.) still apply. What is releasable under FOIA gets released; what is exempt gets withheld. The identity of the requester does not change either category.
What this means for you
Public employees and former public employees
Your personnel file is largely a public record. Routine workplace information, dates of employment, role titles, and salary are presumptively releasable to anyone who asks. The requester does not have to justify the request.
The protected categories are narrow. Personal contact information (home address, personal phone, personal email) is exempt. Discrete pieces of information of a personal or intimate nature are subject to the Young v. Rice balancing test. Things like medical information, social security numbers, and certain personnel-evaluation content fall under separate exemptions.
If you object to the release of your file, your objection should focus on a specific exempt category and explain why this discrete piece of information meets the exemption. "I don't know who's asking or why" will not work. As the subject of the records, you have a unique procedural right under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to ask the AG to review the custodian's release decision. Use that channel to identify specific items that should be redacted, not to relitigate whether the file is releasable as a category.
Records custodians
When a subject objects to release of personnel records, listen to the substance. If the objection is about specific exempt information (a redacted home address, a medical note, a personal email), apply the right exemption analysis. If the objection is about the requester's identity or motive, document that you cannot consider those factors and proceed with the release. Cite this opinion if needed.
You may, of course, redact properly exempt information regardless of any objection. The opinion does not change your obligation to apply the personnel-records balancing test or the personal-contact-information exemption. It just confirms that the requester's identity does not enter the test.
FOIA requesters
You do not have to explain who you are or why you want the records. If a custodian asks for a justification, decline politely and ask them to apply the FOIA framework. If the custodian still refuses, escalate to the AG under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (for employee-related records) or to court under the FOIA's enforcement provisions.
That said, identifying yourself as press, researcher, or attorney can sometimes speed up cooperation. Custodians know they cannot demand a reason but they sometimes prefer working with a known requester. The choice is yours.
Subjects of FOIA requests considering whether to fight a release
The realistic strategies are: (1) identify specific exempt items in your file and ask the AG to review the redactions; (2) if you believe the entire file falls under an exemption (rare), articulate that exemption; (3) negotiate with the custodian about the form of release. Asking the AG to block the release because you don't know the requester is not one of those strategies.
If you genuinely fear retaliation or harassment from a known requester, consult a lawyer about whether you have other legal remedies (restraining orders, anti-stalking laws, civil torts). FOIA itself doesn't provide that protection.
Records custodians dealing with subject objections more generally
Train your office on the irrelevance of requester identity. This rule is unintuitive. Subjects often assume they can block release by demanding to know who's asking. Have a one-paragraph response ready that explains the rule, cites this opinion (and the long line of prior opinions: 2023-054, 2014-094, 2011-095), and walks the subject through their actual procedural rights under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
Common questions
The requester is clearly trying to harass me. Doesn't that matter?
Not directly under FOIA. The requester's motive is irrelevant. If the requester is genuinely engaged in stalking, harassment, or other illegal conduct, your remedies are outside FOIA: restraining orders, criminal complaints, civil torts. FOIA does not deputize custodians to assess motive.
Can the custodian tell me who requested my records?
Sometimes. Some custodians will share the requester's name as a courtesy, especially if the requester has not asked for confidentiality. But the requester is not required to provide a name in many cases, so the custodian may genuinely not know.
Can I FOIA the FOIA request itself?
Possibly. The request letter or email submitted by the requester is itself a public record held by the agency. You may be able to obtain it under a separate FOIA request, which would tell you who asked and what they asked for. Whether the requester's identity is itself exempt depends on how it appears in the agency's records.
Are there any record categories where the requester's identity matters?
Very few. The general FOIA principle is that purpose is irrelevant. Some narrow contexts (court-record sealing, juvenile records, certain medical records) involve different statutes that may consider purpose. But standard public records, including most personnel records, do not.
My former employer is releasing my file. Can I sue them?
Not for following FOIA properly. If the custodian releases properly-redacted public records consistent with FOIA, no cause of action exists against the employer for that release. If the custodian over-releases (e.g., fails to redact a clearly exempt piece of information), separate causes of action might apply, but they would be against the custodian for the disclosure of exempt information, not for releasing the file generally.
The AG's opinion went against me. What's my next step?
AG opinions are persuasive but not binding. You can file a state circuit court action under FOIA's enforcement provisions to seek an injunction against release. Be prepared to articulate a specific exemption that applies, not just a general objection.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas FOIA is at A.C.A. § 25-19-101 et seq. The principle that requester identity and motive are irrelevant is a longstanding rule developed through AG opinions and judicial interpretation. It traces from the FOIA's structural design: public records are public, and requiring a justification would convert FOIA from a transparency rule into a discretionary disclosure regime.
Section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) gives the subject of certain employee-related records the right to ask the AG to review the custodian's release decision. The custodian and the requester have parallel rights. The AG's opinion is procedural, fast, and persuasive but not binding. A losing party can pursue judicial review.
The "irrelevant motive" rule has been confirmed across many AG opinions, including Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-054, 2014-094, and 2011-095, all cited here.
The personnel-records exemption, A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), still applies to redact specific exempt content. Personal contact information of public employees is separately exempt under § 25-19-105(b)(13). But neither exemption hinges on who's asking.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (subject's right to AG review)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-054, 2014-094, 2011-095 (motive of requester is irrelevant)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2023-073
August 15, 2023
Ms. Chantia Shells
c/o Pulaski County Human Resources Director
201 South Broadway Street, Suite 100
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Ms. Shells:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the subject 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.
Your former employer has received a FOIA request for your personnel file. The custodian intends to release your personnel file with redactions. You object to the release of your records because you say you do not know the requester, and you do not know why the requester is seeking your records or what he plans to do with them.
This office has consistently opined that, under the FOIA, the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant to the custodian in deciding whether public records must be disclosed. Therefore, your objection is not a sufficient basis for the custodian to withhold your records from disclosure.
Assistant Attorney Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General