If I'm the subject of a Pulaski County FOIA request for a workplace complaint about me, what can the County actually release and what must it redact?

Plain-English summary

Pulaski County received a FOIA request for complaints filed against its employees. The custodian planned to release a complaint form, a complaint statement, and several emails from Ms. Rodriguez's personnel file with redactions. As the subject of the records, Rodriguez asked the AG to review the proposal under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).

Attorney General Tim Griffin concluded the custodian's plan was mostly right, with three fixes:

1. The emails are correctly classified as personnel records and can be released with redactions for things like personal contact info, medical information, and identifying details that carry a real privacy interest. But several supervisor names were redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(12) without an obvious privacy basis. The custodian needs to revisit each redaction and document why disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
2. The redactions are not consistent across duplicate copies of the same records. Some emails redact subject lines and addresses while leaving them unredacted in other copies of the same emails. That has to be cleaned up before release.
3. The Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form is a mixed record. As to the employee being complained about, it is an employee-evaluation or job-performance record (assumed to have been created at the behest of the employer). Because the subject of the complaint has not been suspended or terminated, the form must be withheld in full as to that employee. As to the complaining employee, it is a personnel record, and the custodian must apply the personnel-records balancing test to any segregable portion that pertains only to the complainant. Identifying details about the complainant are typically redacted in sexual-harassment-style complaints because the complainant has a heightened privacy interest.

The companion opinions in this same Pulaski-County FOIA cluster (Opinions 2025-130 and 2025-132) reach overlapping conclusions about how to classify and redact this kind of record.

What this means for you

If you're the subject of a workplace complaint that someone has FOIA'd

You can ask the AG for a § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) opinion before the custodian releases anything. That opinion is non-binding, but custodians and courts pay attention to it. In practice, what gets released depends on the type of record:

• Emails you sent or received about workplace issues: usually personnel records. Likely to be released with redactions for personal contact info, medical detail, and other privacy-protected items. Your name as the subject of the complaint is generally not redacted unless there's a specific heightened privacy interest.
• A formal discrimination or harassment complaint form filed against you: an evaluation record. Stays sealed unless you've been suspended or terminated and the suspension/termination is administratively final, the form was the basis for the action, AND there is a compelling public interest in disclosure. All four prongs.
• Notes, memos, transcripts of investigation interviews: these tend to qualify as "preliminary notes and other materials" under § 25-19-105(c)(1) and follow the same four-part test.

If you're a FOIA records custodian for an Arkansas county

Three takeaways from this opinion:

1. Apply redactions consistently. If you redact a name or email address in one copy of an email, redact it in every other copy of the same record. Inconsistency creates the impression that you're guessing, and it is the easiest thing for a requester to challenge.
2. Document the privacy interest behind every name you redact. § 25-19-105(b)(12) is a balancing test, not a blanket "redact all names" rule. The AG flagged supervisor-name redactions in this case because the basis was unclear from the face of the records.
3. For mixed records, segregate. Run the personnel-records test on the portions that pertain to the complainant, and separately run the evaluation-records four-part test on the portions that pertain to the subject. Redact identifying information about the complainant in sexual-harassment and similar sensitive complaints.

If you're the requester

If you're seeking complaints against a public employee, expect to get the personnel-record portions (often with names of complainants redacted in sensitive cases) and very little, if anything, of the evaluation portions unless the employee has been suspended or terminated. If you think the custodian over-redacted, ask the AG for a § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) review.

If you're a journalist or researcher building a complaint database

This opinion is one of several in the 2025-130 / 2025-132 / 2026-002 / 2026-010 cluster, all involving Pulaski County. They function together as a current Arkansas roadmap for what gets released and what doesn't when employees, complainants, custodians, and requesters all view the records differently. Read the four together when you build your editorial standards.

Common questions

Q: I'm the subject of a complaint that was never investigated. Can the County release the form?
A: As to you, the form is an evaluation record (the AG assumes it was created at the employer's behest). Because you weren't suspended or terminated, the four-part test isn't met, so the form must be withheld as to you. The form may still be released as a personnel record of the complainant, with the complainant's identifying information redacted if their privacy interest is high.

Q: What does "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" actually mean?
A: The Arkansas Supreme Court applies a two-step balancing test: first, ask whether the information is personal or intimate enough to trigger more than a minimal privacy interest; second, weigh that privacy interest against the public's interest in disclosure. The scale is tipped toward public access. Names, alone, usually don't clear the first step unless tied to medical/mental-health detail or other intimate facts.

Q: Can the County redact a supervisor's name just because they're a supervisor?
A: No. Public employees, including supervisors, generally don't have a heightened privacy interest in their identity. The custodian needs a fact-specific reason tied to the content of the record (medical reference, sexual harassment allegation, mental health, etc.) before redacting a name under (b)(12).

Q: What information is always redactable from a personnel record?
A: Personal contact information of public employees (personal phone, personal email, home address) under (b)(13); medical information under (b)(2); employee personnel/identification numbers under (b)(11); marital status; date of birth; SSN; driver's license number; names of children, spouses, ex-spouses; banking information; and intimate financial details.

Q: What about my Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form, can I see it?
A: As the subject of the complaint, you can typically see it through internal HR channels, not through FOIA. § 25-19-105 governs disclosure to the public; it doesn't restrict the County's ability to share with you internally.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is the statutory hook that lets a custodian, requester, or subject of certain employee-related records ask the AG to review the custodian's decision before release. The AG has a five-business-day window. The opinion functions as a kind of pre-clearance, non-binding, but it gives the custodian cover for the decisions the AG endorses.

The personnel-record / evaluation-record split is an Arkansas-specific structure. "Personnel records" is the broad bucket, anything in an employee's file that wasn't created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate the employee. These get released subject to a balancing test. "Employee evaluation or job performance records" is the narrow bucket: records created by or at the employer's behest, to evaluate the employee, that detail performance or lack of performance. These stay sealed unless all four of the suspension-or-termination/finality/relevance/compelling-interest prongs are met.

A 2023 opinion (Op. 2023-074) established that a discrimination and harassment complaint form, completed at the employer's behest, is an evaluation record as to the employee being complained about, and a personnel record as to the complainant. That dual-classification rule is the lever the AG uses here.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103, definitions
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105: exemptions and the (c)(3)(B)(i) review procedure

Cases:
- Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987), three-element framework for FOIA disclosure
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007), rebuttable presumption of public-record status

Companion opinions in this Pulaski-County complaint-records cluster:
- Op. 2025-130 (custodian's view, "at the behest" analysis)
- Op. 2025-132 (separate requester's view of overlapping records)
- Op. 2026-002 (different subject, supervisor-created memo classified as evaluation)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

Opinion No. 2026-010

January 23, 2026

Ms. Brenda Rodriguez
Via email only: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Rodriguez:

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 I received from the records custodian, Pulaski County received a FOIA request for complaints filed against Pulaski County employees. You report that the custodian intends to release certain records from your personnel file with redactions: a complaint form; a complaint statement; and multiple emails. I have been provided redacted and unredacted copies of the records for my review, and you ask whether the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

The custodian's decision to release the records with redactions is mostly consistent with the FOIA. The custodian will need to review and ensure that redactions are consistent across copies of the same records. Further, the custodian will need to assess each record individually to determine whether disclosing employees' names would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. It is unclear based on the records themselves why some employee names have been redacted.

DISCUSSION

1. General rules. A document must be released in response to a FOIA request if all three of the following elements are met. First, the FOIA request must be directed to an entity subject to the FOIA. Second, the requested document must constitute a public record. Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to Pulaski County, 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. I have no information, however, to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, so I will turn to whether any exemptions prevent the documents' release.

For purposes of the FOIA, employees' personnel files normally contain two distinct groups of records: "personnel records" and "employee-evaluation or job-performance records." The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. When reviewing documents to determine whether to release them under the FOIA, 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.

2. Mixed records. Some employee-related records are "mixed records" because they are (1) more than one person's evaluation, (2) at least one person's evaluation and at least one person's personnel record, or (3) more than one person's personnel record. When a portion of a record is mixed, the custodian should apply the applicable tests for disclosure to that portion of the record.

3. Emails. The emails are best classified as "personnel records" because (1) they pertain to an individual employee, as each email does; and (2) they are not employee-evaluation or job-performance records, created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Thus, the decision to classify and release the email records as personnel records is consistent with the FOIA.

A personnel record subject to release, however, 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); medical information about the employe that concerns the nature, treatment, or diagnosis of a medical condition, including test results; employee personnel numbers or identification codes; marital status of public employees; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; names of children, spouses, and ex-spouses; banking information; and other financial "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."

The custodian has redacted names of supervisors from some of the records under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). But the reasons for such redactions are not clear. Because I do not have access to all the facts concerning the records, some privacy interest may exist that is not readily apparent, but the custodian will need to review and make that determination.

For consistency, the custodian will want to review page three of the October 29, 2025 email to determine whether the text between the phrases, "contributed to" and "are officially recorded and handled directly through HR," should be redacted, consistent with redactions made to similar information in other records.

Additionally, some emails redact subject lines and email addresses while leaving that same information unredacted in other emails. The custodian will need to review and ensure that redactions are applied consistently across identical records.

4. Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form. This is a mixed record. On one hand, as to the employee being complained about, the County's "Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form" is best classified as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record because, even though the form is submitted by individual employees, it was "created by and completed at the behest of the employer to evaluate another employee with respect to a specific incident of harassment or discrimination." In classifying the "Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form" as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record, I assume for purposes of this opinion that the form was completed at the behest of the employer. If, however, that is not the case, that form would be best classified as the "personnel record" of the employee who is the subject of the complaint. Ultimately, the custodian will need to review the surrounding facts and make that determination.

Employee-evaluation or job-performance records cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:

• Suspension or termination. The employee was suspended or terminated;
• Administrative finality. The suspension or termination is administratively final and is, therefore, incapable of any administrative reversal or modification;
• Relevance. The records in question formed a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee; and
• Compelling interest. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question.

Because my understanding is that the subject of the complaint has not been suspended or terminated, the form should be withheld from release.

On the other hand, the "Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form" is also the personnel record of the employee making the complaint; it is not his or her employee-evaluation or job-performance record. Therefore, the custodian must review the form and conduct the personnel records balancing test for any reasonably segregable portion "that pertains to the complainant but does not evaluate the complained-about employee." This Office has concluded that a complainant's identifying information should be redacted from otherwise releasable employment records concerning allegations of sexual harassment. Thus, the complaining employee here may have a high privacy interest given the nature of the allegations.

5. Complaint statements. If the "A. Complaint Statements" and "B. Complaint Statements" are either addendums to or part of the "Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form," then they would also be best classified as employee-evaluation or job-performance records as to the employee being complained of, and personnel records of the employee making the complaint. The custodian will need to conduct the same review and make similar redactions as those discussed for the "Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form" above. If, however, these statements were unsolicited and created entirely by the complainant on her own initiative, they would be personnel records subject to release with any applicable redactions as discussed in the "Emails" section above.

Although two copies of the same "A. Complaint Statements" and "B. Complaint Statements" appear in the responsive records, the redactions differ between the standalone copy and the one included with the "Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form."

Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General