If a public agency hires me, can someone get my whole job application (resume, cover letter, references) under FOIA?
Plain-English summary
Ms. Rayvern Lewis was hired by the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services. After she was hired, someone filed a FOIA request for her "employment application." The custodian determined that the application, resume, and cover letter were releasable as personnel records, with redactions. Lewis objected and asked the AG to review whether the custodian's call was right.
Attorney General Tim Griffin agreed with the custodian. A successful job applicant's application materials are personnel records under Arkansas FOIA, and personnel records are open to public inspection unless disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Under the Young v. Rice (1992) two-step privacy-balancing test, the materials don't normally cross that threshold, especially when they describe a public-job hire that the public has an interest in.
But the AG flagged two corrections to what the custodian was doing.
First, the custodian was about to release private-employer salary information from Lewis's resume. Salary information from prior private-sector jobs is typically not subject to release because the privacy interest in it outweighs any public interest. Public-sector salary in the new job is releasable, but historical private-sector compensation has to be redacted unless there is a heightened public interest in disclosing it.
Second, the custodian had redacted information about job references. The rule for references depends on who the reference is. If a reference is a nonelected public employee, his personal contact information is exempt from release under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) when contained in employer records. If the reference is a private-sector employee, his contact information is not exempt, and shouldn't be redacted.
The AG also listed the standard categories of personal information that always have to be redacted from a personnel record: personal contact info, employee identification numbers, marital status of public employees, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, insurance coverage info, tax/withholding info, payroll deductions, net pay, banking, and other intimate financial details.
What this means for you
If you applied for and accepted a public-sector job in Arkansas
Your application, resume, and cover letter are now personnel records subject to FOIA release. The custodian has to redact your personal contact information, social security number, date of birth, and similar discrete items. But your name, education, prior employment history (with private-sector salaries redacted), professional certifications, and references' contact information (if the reference is in the private sector) will be releasable.
If you are concerned about a particular detail being released, identify it specifically and ask the custodian whether it falls into a redaction category. Don't expect the whole file to be withheld; that is not how the law works.
If you are an HR director or recruiter for a public agency
Train your records-custodian colleagues on the redaction rules. The most common errors:
- Releasing private-employer salary information that should be redacted
- Redacting reference contact information that should be released (when the reference is in the private sector)
- Redacting the public-employee's salary information (which is releasable)
- Redacting the public-employee's race or sex (which is releasable)
Build a redaction checklist that walks through each category.
If you are a FOIA requester or journalist
A successful applicant's personnel file is releasable. You will get the application, resume, and cover letter with limited redactions. Don't accept blanket withholding.
If you are particularly interested in compensation history for accountability reasons, note that private-sector salary history is typically redacted unless there is a "heightened public interest." That is a fact-specific test; if the public interest is high (a high-profile official or a controversial hire), you may be able to argue for release.
If you are a person listed as a job reference
If you are a private-sector reference, your name and contact info will likely be public. If you are a nonelected public employee in your day job, your personal contact info will be redacted from the record but your name and your role at the public agency may be releasable.
Common questions
Q: Why are job applications considered personnel records?
A: They pertain to an individual employee but were not created by the employer to evaluate the employee. They predate employment and are filed in the employee's personnel file. Multiple AG opinions over the years have confirmed this classification.
Q: What if I was an unsuccessful applicant?
A: Different analysis. Successful applicants are treated as employees for FOIA purposes; unsuccessful applicants raise different privacy and public-interest considerations. AG Op. 2024-096 (cited here) walks through that distinction.
Q: What is the Young v. Rice balancing test?
A: A two-step inquiry. Step one: is the information personal or intimate enough to give rise to more than a de minimis privacy interest? Step two: if so, does the public's interest in disclosure outweigh that privacy interest? The test is "with the scale tipped in favor of public access."
Q: Why are private-sector salary numbers redacted but public-sector salaries released?
A: Public salaries are paid with tax dollars and are public-interest information. Private-sector salaries are private compensation arrangements; the public interest is usually weaker, and the privacy interest is higher. AG Op. 2019-065 explains the heightened-public-interest exception.
Q: What about my date of birth and race?
A: Date of birth gets redacted (AG Op. 2007-064). Race does not (AG Op. 91-351). This may seem inconsistent, but the privacy analysis applies category by category.
Q: What's an "employee identification number"?
A: A personnel-system number used to identify the employee in HR systems. It is exempt under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (and Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2022-032) because it is treated as a "personal identification number" used for computer security functions.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas FOIA classifies records by their relationship to the employee. Personnel records (open with redactions) are records that pertain to the employee but were not created to evaluate them. Evaluation records (closed unless the four-part test of (c)(1) is met) are records created to evaluate the employee.
Job applications, resumes, and cover letters are personnel records. They precede employment, are not evaluations, and constitute the agency's record of who was hired and on what credentials. Multiple AG opinions over the years (cited in 2025-064's footnotes 9-10) have confirmed this consistently.
The redaction rules apply piece by piece. The Young v. Rice balancing test (the central case) operates at the document level: should this whole document be withheld? Then a discrete-redaction analysis (under § 25-19-105(f)) operates at the data-element level: what specific fields within an otherwise-releasable document have to come out?
Private-sector salary history is one of those discrete fields. The AG has long recognized a stronger privacy interest in private compensation history. A "heightened public interest" exception exists for high-profile cases, but the default is redaction.
Reference handling is another discrete-redaction category. Contact info for nonelected public-employee references is exempt under (b)(13) when contained in employer records. Contact info for private-sector references is not.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (public-record definition)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exception)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (opinion-request authority)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f) (redaction authority)
Cases:
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511 (2012)
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (2012)
Prior AG opinions cited:
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2025-023, 2024-096, 2024-073, 2024-022, 2022-039, 2022-032, 2019-065, 2019-008, 2018-093, 2018-084, 2018-083, 2018-064, 2018-015, 2016-129, 2016-124, 2016-103, 2016-055, 2015-072, 2015-034, 2015-008, 2014-127, 2014-123, 2014-094, 2012-146, 2012-115, 2011-114, 2010-070, 2009-181, 2009-156, 2009-096, 2009-032, 2008-129, 2008-082, 2008-039, 2007-070, 2007-064, 2007-025, 2006-182, 2006-176, 2006-165, 2006-044, 2006-035, 2005-194, 2005-131, 2005-086, 2005-057, 2005-004, 2004-167, 2003-385, 2003-153, 2003-015, 2002-252, 2002-159, 2002-043, 2001-152, 2001-112, 2001-080, 2001-028, 99-147, 98-126, 98-101, 97-368, 97-042, 96-256, 96-205, 96-142, 95-256, 95-242, 95-220, 95-110, 94-235, 94-198, 93-076, 91-351, 91-093, 90-335, 87-422
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-064
July 28, 2025
Ms. Rayvern D. Lewis
Sent via email only: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Lewis:
You have requested an opinion from this Office 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). 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.
According to correspondence our Office received from the custodian, your employer received a FOIA request for your "employment application." The custodian has determined that an application, resume, and cover letter are subject to release, with certain redactions. You have provided a redacted copy of each record.
You object to your application records being disclosed and request that I review the custodian's decision to determine whether it is consistent with the FOIA. Additionally, you state that "personal records are exempt from disclosure due to an invasion of personal privacy" and that certain FOIA exemptions "protect[] sensitive personal information and uphold individual privacy."
RESPONSE
The custodian's decision to release the job application records as personnel records is consistent with the FOIA. But, as discussed in the opinion, the custodian will need to review the salary information contained in the application and make redactions to private-employer salary information. And to the extent that a job reference listed in the application is employed in the private sector, his or her information is not exempt from release and should not be redacted.
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 Arkansas Department of Workforce Services, 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.
- Employee application records. This Office has consistently opined that a successful job applicant's résumés, application cover letters, and applications qualify as "personnel records" under the FOIA.
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.
Applying this balancing test to a successful applicant's records, this Office has regularly concluded that "the balance weighs in favor of release." Additionally, the following information commonly contained in applications and resumes are personnel records subject to release under the FOIA: dates of hire; general education background, including schools attended and degrees received; training and certifications; employee names; salaries of public employees; salary history of public employees; and payroll records. Therefore, the custodian's decision to disclose the application records is consistent with the FOIA.
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."
If a job reference is a non-elected public employee, and their personal contact information is "contained in employer records," then such personal contact information should be redacted. But if the job reference is employed in the private sector, his or her personal contact information, such as addresses and telephone numbers, are not exempt from disclosure. The custodian will need to examine the job references and make applicable redactions if the reference listed holds a private-sector job.
To the extent that the job application includes private-employment salaries, such information generally should be redacted unless, for some reason known to the custodian, there is a "heightened public interest in this private-sector salary information." I lack sufficient information to determine whether a particular salary listed in the job application records is private or public. The custodian will need to examine the salaries listed and determine if they are private-employer salary information subject to redaction.
Assistant Attorney General Justin L. Hughes prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General