Someone made a FOIA request for the personnel files and job applications of three of our city's police officers. As the custodian, what do I have to redact and what must I release?
Plain-English summary
The City of Guy got a FOIA request for the personnel files and job applications of three of its police officers. The city attorney, acting as custodian, decided the records were "generally subject to disclosure with some portions redacted" and asked the AG whether the redaction call was right.
The AG largely agreed with the disclose-with-redactions posture, but flagged three corrections.
What the custodian got right: the records are properly classified as personnel records (job applications and "personal history statements" are personnel records under decades of AG precedent, not employee-evaluation records). Personal contact information, social security numbers, dates of birth, information about dependents, insurance information, banking and financial information, and driver's license numbers were all properly redacted.
What the custodian missed on the protective side: marital status was inadequately redacted. Marital status itself, plus information that necessarily reveals it, must be redacted. That includes references to a spouse's parents and to divorce, both of which "indirectly reflect marital status." Information about the officers' children must also be redacted.
What the custodian over-redacted: salary history, references' personal contact information (when the references are private parties), and "place of birth" treated inconsistently across the three officers. Salary information is rarely redactable, the public's interest in employee compensation is substantial. References' addresses and phone numbers are usually not exempt unless those references are themselves public employees. And "place of birth" needs to be treated the same way for all three officers, not redacted for two and released for one.
What this means for you
If you are a city or county records custodian
Run a two-pass review. First pass: classify each document as personnel record or evaluation record (job applications, "personal history statements," and résumés are personnel records, not evaluation records). Second pass on each personnel record: redact the protected categories (SSNs, personal contact info, dates and places of birth, dependents, marital status, insurance, banking, driver's license, employee personnel numbers used for system access) and release the rest, including salary.
Be consistent across multiple subjects. If you redact "place of birth" for two officers in the same release, redact it for the third. Inconsistent redactions invite challenge and undermine the custodian's credibility on the closer calls.
When in doubt about whether a piece of information indirectly reveals a redactable fact (like a spouse's surname revealing marital status), redact. The "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" standard is objective, not what the officer prefers.
If you are a FOIA requester
The city does not have to give you marital status, dependents, contact information, SSNs, dates of birth, banking, insurance, or driver's license numbers, even when the underlying record is otherwise releasable. But it does have to give you salary history. If a city's response redacts the salary section without explanation, push back and cite this opinion.
References listed on a job application, when they are private individuals, are also not redactable. Their contact information is not "the personal contact information of a public employee" and is not exempt under section 25-19-105(b)(13).
If you are a police officer whose file has been requested
The FOIA's privacy test is objective. Your discomfort with disclosure does not control. What does shift the analysis is whether disclosure would compromise an actual privacy interest the courts recognize as more than de minimis: family details, financial intimacy, identifiers that enable identity theft. Salary, training, dates of hire, and resume content are typically released.
If you are a city attorney advising a custodian
Don't treat job applications as evaluation records. They aren't. The four-element termination test does not apply. Use the personnel-records balancing test in section 25-19-105(b)(12). Get the redactions list right (the AG cites a long roster of redaction categories with citations to prior opinions, you should keep that list at hand when reviewing files).
Common questions
Are job applications and "personal history statements" personnel records or evaluation records?
Personnel records. The AG has "repeatedly opined that employees' job applications and résumés qualify as 'personnel records' under the FOIA." They are subject to the Young v. Rice balancing test, not the four-element evaluation test that applies to performance evaluations and termination letters.
What information must always be redacted from a personnel record before release?
The opinion lists the standard categories: personal contact information of public employees (personal phone, personal email, home address); employee personnel numbers or identification codes used for system access; marital status and information that necessarily reveals it; information about dependents or children; dates of birth; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; insurance coverage; tax information or withholdings; payroll deductions; net pay; banking information; and "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
Can salary be redacted?
Almost never. The AG has "consistently opined that the public's interest in the salaries and qualifications of its employees is substantial, so a public employee's salary information will rarely ever outweigh the public's interest." If a custodian redacts salary, they need a specific reason, not a general privacy claim.
The job application lists references with their phone numbers and addresses. Do I redact those?
Only if the references are themselves public employees. If they are private individuals, the AG says addresses and phone numbers of references "are generally not exempt from disclosure when contained in a nonexempt public record." If you cannot tell whether a reference is a public employee, the custodian has to investigate or err toward release.
What about "place of birth"?
Older AG opinions said employees have "relatively little privacy interest" in place of birth, but more recent caselaw has recognized that place of birth, combined with date of birth and other data, can enable identity theft. So redaction is permissible. The key rule from this opinion: be consistent. Don't redact it for one officer and release it for another in the same response.
The officer objects to release. Does that matter?
No. The privacy test is objective. The officer's preference does not control. What matters is whether disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy under the Young v. Rice two-step balancing.
Can the custodian skip the redactions if release is to a small audience?
No. The redactions are statutory. Once the record is released to anyone outside the FOIA's exemption framework, it is treated as released to the public.
Background and statutory framework
Two-test split. Arkansas FOIA divides employee-related records into two buckets with different release tests. Personnel records (records pertaining to an individual employee but not created to evaluate them) get released unless disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Employee-evaluation or job-performance records (records created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee, detailing performance or lack of performance) are sealed unless all four elements of section 25-19-105(c)(1) are met: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance to the discipline, and compelling public interest.
The Young v. Rice balancing. Personnel records use a two-step balancing test under section 25-19-105(b)(12). Step one: does the information rise to a more-than-de-minimis privacy interest? Step two: if yes, does that privacy interest outweigh the public's interest? The scale tips in favor of public access throughout.
Section 25-19-105(b)(13) personal contact information. This subsection exempts personal phone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses of public employees, even when otherwise embedded in releasable records.
Section 25-19-105(b)(11) personnel numbers. This subsection exempts "personal identification numbers" used for computer security functions. The AG treats public employee personnel numbers as falling within this exemption when they "presumably provide access to computerized data."
The redaction categories. The opinion's footnotes 16 through 28 collect the AG's catalogue of automatically-redacted categories with statutory and prior-opinion citations. Custodians should treat that list as a checklist, not a starting point for argument.
Citations
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (definition of public records)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers used for computer security functions)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records balancing test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information of public employees)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG review authority)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f) (redaction of pieces of otherwise releasable records)
Cases:
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511 (three-element FOIA framework)
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007) (rebutting public-record presumption)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) (personnel-records balancing test)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (definition of evaluation record)
- Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466 (approving AG definition of evaluation records)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998) (burden on party resisting disclosure)
- Okla. Pub. Employees Ass'n v. Okla. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 267 P.3d 838 (Okla. 2011) (place-of-birth privacy interest)
- Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accts. v. Att'y Gen. of Tex., 354 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2010) (date of birth, place of birth, and SSNs)
- Data Tree, LLC v. Meek, 109 P.3d 1226 (Kan. 2005) (SSNs, mothers' maiden names, dates of birth)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-025
April 22, 2025
Mr. Dustin Chapman
Guy City Attorney
1319 Main Street
Conway, Arkansas 72034
Dear Mr. Chapman:
You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made as the custodian of records, is based on A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). This subdivision authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related records to seek an opinion stating whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.
Your correspondence indicates that the City of Guy has received FOIA requests for "the personnel files and job applications of three Guy police officers." You have reviewed the responsive records and state that you believe they "are generally subject to disclosure with some portions redacted to protect the officers' statutory interests of privacy." Because the officers who are the subject of the request object to the release of their records, you have provided me with redacted copies of the records you intend to release, and you ask whether your decision is consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, your decision to release the records as redacted is partially consistent with the FOIA. The responsive records are properly classified as personnel records, and you have correctly determined that they are "generally subject to disclosure with some portions redacted." However, some information that is subject to disclosure has been improperly redacted, and several additional pieces of information must be redacted from the records before they may be released.
DISCUSSION
- General rules. A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if (1) the request was directed to an entity subject to the FOIA, (2) the requested document is a public record, and (3) no exceptions allow the document to be withheld. The first two elements appear to be met. The request was made to the City of Guy, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the records at issue appear to be public records. Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records, although that presumption is rebuttable. Given that I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted here, I will focus on whether any exemptions prevent the documents' disclosure.
For purposes of the FOIA, employees' personnel files normally contain two distinct groups of records: "personnel records" and "employee-evaluation or job-performance records." Personnel records are records that pertain to an individual employee that were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Employee-evaluation and job-performance records, on the other hand, are records (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the employee (3) that detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job.
The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. Thus, the custodian must first decide whether a record meets the definition of either a "personnel record" or an "employee-evaluation or job-performance record" and then apply the appropriate test for that record to determine whether the record should be released under the FOIA.
- Personnel records. Because the records at issue are personnel records, I will restrict my discussion to that category of public records. A personnel record is open to public inspection except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." While the FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," the Arkansas Supreme Court has provided some guidance. In Young v. Rice, the Court applied a balancing test that weighs the public's interest in accessing the records against the individual's interest in keeping them private. The balancing test, which takes place "with the scale tipped in favor of public access," has two steps.
First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested document is of a personal or intimate nature such that it gives rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest. If the privacy interest is minimal, then the records should be disclosed. Second, if the information does give rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest, then the custodian must determine whether that privacy interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure.
Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the person resisting disclosure bears the burden of showing that, under the circumstances, the employee's privacy interests outweigh the public's interest. The fact that the subject of the records may consider release of the records an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective.
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain pieces of information that must be redacted, such as personal contact information of public employees (including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses); employee personnel numbers or identification codes; marital status of public employees; information about children and dependents; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; insurance coverage; tax information or withholdings; payroll deductions; net pay; banking information; and other financial "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
-
Classification of the records. The records you have submitted for my review include the officers' job applications, which are titled "personal history statements." This Office has repeatedly opined that employees' job applications and résumés qualify as "personnel records" under the FOIA. Thus, your decision to disclose the application records, with exempt information redacted, is consistent with the FOIA.
-
Redactions to the records. You have properly redacted certain discrete pieces of information that are exempt from release, including the officers' social security numbers, personal contact information, dates of birth, information about dependents, insurance information, banking and financial information, and driver's license numbers. However, additional redactions should be made regarding the officers' marital status (including details regarding a spouse's parents and regarding divorce, which indirectly reflect marital status) and regarding the officers' children.
I have also identified several instances in which nonexempt information may have been improperly redacted from the records. The first instance relates to the redacted addresses and telephone numbers of job references. If these people were or are public employees, then their personal contact information should be redacted. Otherwise, there is no basis, in my opinion, for redacting their personal contact information. This Office has previously opined that the addresses and telephone numbers of a job applicant's references are generally not exempt from disclosure when contained in a nonexempt public record.
The second instance relates to salary. The salary history for one of the three officers has been redacted from the records, but the reasons for these redactions are unclear. This Office has consistently opined that the public's interest in the salaries and qualifications of its employees is substantial, so a public employee's salary information will rarely ever outweigh the public's interest under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12)'s balancing test. As a result, I cannot say that your decision to redact this salary information is consistent with the FOIA.
Finally, I will note that you have redacted the "place of birth" for two of the officers, but you have not redacted this information for the third officer. Early opinions from this Office opined that employees have "relatively little privacy interest in records revealing … place of birth." However, more recent caselaw has found that, in an increasingly digital age, the release of information that may be used to access an individual's personal data (e.g., date of birth, place of birth, mother's maiden name), can constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Therefore, I do not believe your decision to redact "place of birth" is improper, but your redaction decisions should be consistent among all the records.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General