When Pulaski County releases a fired employee's file (termination form, incident report, screenshots of text messages), what redactions are required?
Subject
Whether the Pulaski County custodian's decision to release a screenshot of "Termination Details," a two-page incident report, and seven pages of text message screenshots from terminated employee Quiana Braggs's personnel file (with proposed redactions) is consistent with FOIA.
Plain-English summary
Quiana Braggs used the FOIA subject-side opinion procedure to challenge release of her personnel file. The custodian planned to release three sets of records with redactions: a termination details screenshot, a two-page incident report, and seven pages of text-message screenshots.
The AG's analysis split the records into the FOIA two-track framework.
Termination form and incident report: evaluation records. A termination form that explains the reason for termination is an evaluation record (Op. 2025-049). The incident report, created and signed by a supervisor evaluating Braggs's job performance, is also an evaluation record (Thomas v. Hall). Evaluation records can be released only when all four elements of the test are met: (1) suspension or termination; (2) administrative finality; (3) records formed a basis for the discipline; (4) compelling public interest. Termination is established here, but the AG flagged two open questions: whether the termination is administratively final (if an appeal is pending, no), and whether the public has a compelling interest in the form's disclosure. The custodian must answer both fact-specific questions. If either fails, the form must be withheld.
Text messages: personnel records. The text messages pertain to Braggs but were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate her. They are personnel records, releasable under the Young v. Rice balancing test. Importantly, "[a] record is not transformed into an employee-evaluation or job-performance record by virtue of a subsequent investigation" (Op. 2001-191). So the text messages stay personnel records even though they later became part of an investigation file.
Statutory and AG-opinion redactions for personnel records: personal contact info, medical information about treatment or diagnosis (and test results), employee personnel/identification numbers, marital status, DOB, SSN, driver's license, names of family members, banking information, intimate financial detail.
Two specific problems with the custodian's redactions:
First, consistency. A medical diagnosis was redacted from the incident report but remained visible in the text messages. If the custodian determines that the records contain medical information about Braggs's nature, treatment, or diagnosis of a medical condition, then she must apply consistent redactions across all records. Inconsistent redactions defeat the purpose.
Second, employee name redactions. The custodian redacted some employee names without a clear basis. Names of public employees are presumptively public; redacting a name requires a Young v. Rice analysis showing why disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy for that specific person. The custodian must document the basis for each name redaction.
Note on the "Employee ID": the original redaction was justified under § 25-19-105(b)(12), the personnel-record privacy provision. But the termination form is not a personnel record, it is an evaluation record, so (b)(12) does not apply. The proper basis for redacting an Employee ID is A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers used for computer security functions), if applicable.
What this means for you
If you are a county HR administrator preparing to release a similar file
Two practical traps to avoid. First, classify each record correctly before redacting. A termination form that gives reasons is an evaluation record; the four-part test applies, not the personnel-record privacy test. A text message that the employee sent or received in the ordinary course is a personnel record, not transformed into evaluation by a later investigation. Second, document and apply redactions consistently. The same statutory exemption that justifies redacting medical information from a report justifies redacting it from a text message screenshot if it appears there. Whatever you redact in one place, redact in all places.
If you are a terminated employee facing a FOIA release
You can challenge through the subject-side AG opinion process (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)). Two things you can usefully ask the custodian to verify: (a) is the termination administratively final, or is an appeal still pending? If pending, element 2 of the four-part test fails and the evaluation records stay confidential. (b) Has the custodian properly documented the compelling-interest analysis under element 4? The mere fact of public employment does not satisfy element 4; specific factors (rank, nature of infraction, public controversy) must be applied.
If you are a FOIA requester
You will get the text messages (with privacy redactions) presumptively. The termination form and incident report depend on the custodian's analysis of finality and compelling public interest. If the custodian withholds, you can challenge by raising specific facts (employee rank, public controversy, nature of infraction) that bear on element 4.
Common questions
Q: Why aren't text messages evaluation records when they're part of an investigation file?
A: Because they were not created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate the employee. Op. 2001-191: a pre-existing record does not get reclassified just because it later becomes part of an investigation. The "by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate" element of Thomas v. Hall must be assessed at the time the record was created.
Q: What makes a termination form an "evaluation" rather than a "personnel" record?
A: Whether it gives the reasons for termination. A bare-fact letter ("you are terminated effective X") is a personnel record. A letter that says "you are terminated for X reason" is an evaluation record (Op. 2013-155).
Q: What's the difference between (b)(11) and (b)(12) redactions for employee IDs?
A: (b)(11) exempts "personal identification numbers" used for computer-security functions; this protects an Employee ID even when a record is not a personnel record. (b)(12) is the broader privacy exemption for personnel records and does not apply to evaluation records.
Q: How can a citizen tell whether a redaction is justified?
A: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B) requires the custodian to identify the applicable exemption when redacting. If the custodian cannot articulate a statutory basis for a specific redaction, the redaction is improper.
Q: What about medical information that pre-dates the termination?
A: Still must be redacted under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2). The exemption protects medical information about treatment or diagnosis regardless of when the underlying medical event happened.
Background and statutory framework
The FOIA two-track framework: personnel records (open with privacy redactions under Young v. Rice) versus evaluation/job-performance records (open only when all four elements of the § 25-19-105(c)(1) test are met).
Personnel records are records that pertain to an employee but were not created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate the employee. Evaluation records are created (a) by or at the employer's behest, (b) to evaluate the employee, (c) detailing job performance (Thomas v. Hall, Davis v. Van Buren School District).
Termination forms: evaluation records when they give reasons; personnel records when they merely state the fact of termination (Op. 2013-155).
Pre-existing records do not become evaluation records just by inclusion in an investigation file (Op. 2001-191).
Statutory and AG-opinion redactions for personnel records: § 25-19-105(b)(2) (medical), (b)(11) (PIN/IDs for computer security), (b)(13) (personal contact info), plus AG-opinion redactions for SSN, DOB, marital status, driver's license, family member names, banking, intimate financial detail.
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B): custodian must identify the applicable exemption when withholding or redacting.
A.C.A. § 25-19-103(13)(B), as amended by Act 505 of 2025: counties are public entities subject to FOIA.
Citations and references
Statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-105, § 25-19-103.
Cases: Young v. Rice; Thomas v. Hall; Davis v. Van Buren School District; Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; Stilley v. McBride; Legislative Joint Auditing Committee v. Woosley.
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-014
January 28, 2026
Ms. Quiana Braggs
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Braggs:
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 information provided by 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 screenshot of "Termination Details"; a two-page incident report; and seven pages of text message screenshots. I have reviewed both redacted and unredacted copies of the records, 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 partially consistent with the FOIA. While the text messages are personnel records, both the termination form and the incident report are employee-evaluation or job-performance records. Thus, the custodian should apply the proper test for releasing employee-evaluation and job-performance records to those records. The custodian will also need to ensure that redactions, particularly those involving medical information under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2), are applied consistently across copies of the same records. Further, the custodian must 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
[General-rules and personnel-vs-evaluation-record framework discussion.]
3. Termination form. A termination form like the one provided for my review is best classified as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record because it was created by or at the behest of the employer and it specifies the reason for the termination. If the form "merely reflect[ed] the fact of termination, without elaboration," then it would be a "personnel record." But here, the form gives the reason for the termination, making it an evaluation record.
Employee-evaluation or job-performance records cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met: suspension or termination; administrative finality; relevance; and compelling public interest.
The custodian must review the surrounding facts and determine whether all four elements are met. Although the information provided indicates that the employee was terminated and that the record details the grounds for the termination, it is unclear whether the second and fourth elements are satisfied. First, it is unclear whether the termination is administratively final and incapable of any administrative reversal or modification. If an appeal was timely made and is still pending, the second element would not be met. Second, it is unclear from the information provided whether the public has a compelling interest in the form's disclosure. The mere fact that the person in question is a public employee is insufficient to meet the fourth element. The custodian will need to determine whether these two elements are met. If either element is not met, then the screenshot of the termination form must be withheld from release.
Because the termination form is not a personnel record, the exemption currently listed, A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), does not apply to the redaction of the "Employee Id." Certain employee identification numbers, however, may be redacted under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) if such numbers provide access to computerized data or are used for computer security functions.
4. Incident Report. The two-page incident report is an employee-evaluation or job-performance record. It was created by or at the behest of an employer, as it appears to be created and signed by a supervisor, to evaluate in detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job. Therefore, the incident report cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met: suspension or termination; administrative finality; relevance; and compelling interest. As discussed above, whether there is a compelling public interest or whether the termination is administratively final are both questions of fact that the custodian must determine.
The custodian has redacted names of employees 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. Additionally, some employee names are left unredacted. To the extent that the employee names should be redacted, the custodian should ensure that the redactions are applied consistently.
5. Text messages. The text message screenshots are best classified as "personnel records" because (1) they pertain to an individual employee; and (2) they are not employee-evaluation or job-performance records, created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. A record is not transformed into an employee-evaluation or job-performance record by virtue of a subsequent investigation.
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 employee 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."
While the custodian redacted a certain medical diagnosis from the incident report, that same diagnosis remains unredacted in the text messages. If the custodian determines that the responsive records contain medical information about the employee concerning the nature, treatment, or diagnosis of a medical condition, including test results, then she should make consistent redactions to that information throughout the records.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General