When Pulaski County releases HR complaint records (exit interviews, employee complaints, HR responses, harassment investigation forms), how do you classify each piece, and what are the release rules?
Subject
Whether the Pulaski County custodian's classification and release plan for five sets of HR-complaint records (an exit-interview email plus four chains of complaint emails with associated Discrimination and Harassment Complaint forms) is consistent with FOIA. AG concluded that the custodian got several classifications wrong and walked through each.
Plain-English summary
Fred Love used the FOIA subject-side opinion procedure to challenge release of HR complaint records about him. The custodian had classified some as personnel records and others as evaluation records. The AG agreed in some places and disagreed in others.
The big-picture rule from Thomas v. Hall: a record is an evaluation record only if it was created (a) by or at the employer's behest, (b) to evaluate the employee, (c) detailing job performance. Records "routinely created by employees in the course of their duties" are not evaluation records (Op. 2025-130).
Single email dated March 30, 2021 (exit interview): The AG corrected the custodian. An exit interview that "details an employee's work environment" is an employee evaluation, not a personnel record (Op. 2005-271). Here, the exit interview detailed a supervisor's performance, so it is a supervisor's evaluation record. The four-part test applies; if the test is not met, the record is withheld.
March 28, 2021 email chain (initial complaint to general HR address):
- The initial complaint email: correctly classified as personnel record (an unsolicited complaint not created for evaluation purposes; Op. 1996-257).
- March 29, 2021 email forwarding the complaint from general HR to HR Director: incorrectly classified as evaluation. It is a routine email created by HR in the course of duties and does not evaluate anyone. It is a personnel record.
- Second March 29, 2021 email: correctly classified as personnel record.
- April 6-8, 2021 emails and the Discrimination and Harassment Complaint form: correctly classified as evaluation records (they detail a supervisor's performance). Four-part test applies.
May 19, 2023 email chain (employee asks HR about possible discrimination):
- Initial email from employee: correctly classified as personnel record.
- Next two emails (HR providing definitions of discrimination/harassment and asking for more info): incorrectly classified as evaluation. These are routine HR replies that do not detail anyone's job performance. Personnel records.
- Fourth email (employee unsure whether to proceed): incorrectly classified as evaluation. Personnel record.
- Final email (HR Director documents conversation with employee): correctly classified as evaluation. It documents employee performance.
May 30, 2023 email chain (employee about working environment):
- Initial email: correctly classified as personnel record.
- Next email (HR providing definitions and asking for more info): incorrectly classified as evaluation. Personnel record.
- Remaining emails and complaint form: correctly classified as evaluation records.
June 14, 2023 email chain (grant funding compliance question):
- Initial email: correctly classified as personnel record.
- HR's response (noting HR cannot evaluate grant compliance): incorrectly classified as evaluation. Personnel record.
The pattern: routine HR responses that pass along complaints, provide definitions of harassment and discrimination, or otherwise serve administrative functions are personnel records, not evaluation records. Evaluation records are limited to documents that actually detail an individual employee's performance or were created to evaluate.
What this means for you
If you are an HR custodian sorting complaint emails into FOIA categories
Default to personnel-record classification for routine HR communications. Forwarding emails, intake replies, requests for more information, and statements of HR policy are all personnel records, not evaluation records. The Thomas v. Hall test is strict: only records created to evaluate an employee, that detail job performance, count as evaluation records.
When in doubt about whether an email evaluates a specific employee or is just routine HR work, ask: does this email document or assess job performance, or does it just facilitate a process? If the latter, it is a personnel record.
If you are an employee who filed a complaint
Your initial complaint email is a personnel record. So is your follow-up if it just provides more information. The HR replies during intake are also personnel records. What becomes an evaluation record is HR's eventual documentation of facts about the alleged offender's job performance, the completed Discrimination and Harassment Complaint form (when created at the employer's request), and similar substantive evaluation content. The category determines what gets released.
If you are a FOIA requester for HR complaint records
You will get the routine intake correspondence (personnel records, with privacy redactions). You may not get the formal complaint forms or HR documentation of performance issues unless the four-part test is met (which usually requires the alleged offender to have been suspended or terminated as a result).
Common questions
Q: When does an exit interview become an evaluation record?
A: When it details the employee's work environment (Op. 2005-271). A bare-fact exit interview ("I am leaving on date X") is a personnel record. An exit interview that documents specific issues with a supervisor or workplace becomes an evaluation record of those people.
Q: Why is a forwarding email a personnel record?
A: Because it was not created to evaluate anyone. HR routinely forwards emails as part of its workflow. The forwarding act does not constitute employer-directed evaluation of the employee being complained about.
Q: When does an HR Director's email become an evaluation record?
A: When it documents an employee's performance or lack of performance, especially based on a conversation, witness statement, or investigation. The May 19, 2023 chain shows the line: provider-of-definitions email = personnel record; documentation-of-conversation email = evaluation record.
Q: Can a single email chain contain both personnel and evaluation records?
A: Yes. The classification is per record (which can mean per email), not per chain. The custodian must classify each email separately.
Background and statutory framework
Thomas v. Hall (2012) and Davis v. Van Buren School District (2019) define the evaluation-record category narrowly: created (a) by or at the employer's behest, (b) to evaluate, (c) detailing job performance. Records routinely created by employees in the ordinary course are personnel records (Op. 2025-130 explaining the line between supervisor incident reports and routine documents).
Op. 1996-257: records initiated by employees, "not created for evaluation purposes," are not evaluation records.
Op. 2005-271: an exit interview that details working environment becomes an employee evaluation of the supervisors and processes the employee describes.
Personnel records: Young v. Rice balancing test under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). Evaluation records: four-part test under § 25-19-105(c)(1).
Citations and references
Statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-105.
Cases: Thomas v. Hall; Davis v. Van Buren School District; Young v. Rice; Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; Harrill & Sutter v. Farrar; Stilley v. McBride.
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-012
January 26, 2026
Mr. Fredrick Love
c/o Ms. Jennifer Howard
Pulaski County
201 Broadway Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Fredrick Love:
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).
According to information we received from the records custodian, Pulaski County received a FOIA request for complaints filed against Pulaski County employees. The custodian has provided me with redacted and unredacted copies of five sets of records. The custodian has classified some of these records as personnel records and others as employee evaluations, and she intends to release the records with redactions. You object to the release of these records, and you ask if the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, the custodian's decisions are partially consistent with the FOIA. As discussed more fully below, an exit interview that details an employee's work environment is best classified as an employee evaluation. Emails that simply forward an employee's initial complaint are best classified as personnel records. Finally, when a member of Human Resources responds to an employee's initial complaint with instructions for completing the Discrimination and Harassment Complaint form and definitions of harassment and discrimination, that type of email is best classified as a personnel record. If the email documents the employee's claims, however, then it is an employee evaluation.
DISCUSSION
[General rules and the personnel-vs-evaluation framework, including Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Thomas v. Hall, and the Young v. Rice balancing test for personnel records and the four-part test for evaluation records.]
4. Single email dated March 30, 2021. When an employee submits an exit interview with detailed information regarding his work environment, that exit interview becomes an employee evaluation. The exit interview is an evaluation of the supervisor's performance or lack of performance on the job. Here, the custodian has incorrectly classified this document as a personnel record. Instead, the email is an employee evaluation because it details the supervisor's performance or lack of performance on the job.
As an employee-evaluation record, it cannot be disclosed unless the four-part test for disclosure is satisfied. If the test is not satisfied, the evaluation record must be withheld in its entirety. I do not have access to all the facts surrounding this document, so I am unable to determine if it should be withheld in this instance.
5. Records with initial email dated March 28, 2021. [The AG walked through each email in this chain. The initial complaint email and the second March 29, 2021 email were correctly classified as personnel records. The first March 29, 2021 email forwarding the complaint to the HR Director was incorrectly classified as an evaluation; it is a personnel record because it was routinely created by HR employees in the course of their duties. The April 6-8, 2021 emails and the completed Discrimination and Harassment Complaint form were correctly classified as evaluation records.]
6. Records with initial email dated May 19, 2023. [Initial email from employee correctly personnel record. The next two emails (HR providing definitions and asking for more info) were incorrectly classified as evaluation; they are routine documents and personnel records. The fourth email (employee unsure whether to proceed) was incorrectly classified as evaluation; personnel record. The final email (HR Director documents conversation) was correctly classified as evaluation because it documents employee performance.]
7. Records with initial email dated May 30, 2023. [Initial email correctly personnel record. The next email (HR providing definitions and asking for more info) incorrectly classified as evaluation; personnel record. Remaining emails and the Discrimination and Harassment Complaint form correctly classified as evaluation records.]
8. Records with initial email dated June 14, 2023. [Initial email correctly personnel record. HR's response noting HR cannot evaluate grant funding compliance was incorrectly classified as evaluation; this email does not detail an employee's performance and is a personnel record.]
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General