What can a city release when someone FOIAs the file of a recently fired employee, including the termination letter, internal emails, and a social worker's note?

Subject

Whether the City of Lincoln (Arkansas) custodian's decision to withhold all records about a recently terminated city employee under the personnel-record privacy exemption is consistent with FOIA. AG Tim Griffin concluded the blanket withholding was mostly inconsistent with FOIA. Most of the file is releasable as personnel records (with redactions). The termination letter and certain city-attorney emails are evaluation records and require a separate compelling-interest analysis. The AG found that withholding a social worker's letter appeared consistent with FOIA.

Plain-English summary

Steven Zega, the Lincoln city attorney, made a custodian-side request to the AG under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), the provision that lets a custodian (or requester or subject) ask the AG to opine on whether a withholding decision matches FOIA. The underlying FOIA request was for everything supporting the termination of a Lincoln city employee, including the termination appeal records.

The custodian had decided to withhold all of the responsive records under the personnel-record privacy exemption, A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). The AG split that decision into pieces and reviewed each one separately, applying the long-standing two-track FOIA framework: personnel records (releasable unless disclosure is a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under the Young v. Rice balancing test) versus employee-evaluation or job-performance records (releasable only if all four elements of the suspension/termination, finality, relevance, and compelling-public-interest test are met).

Personnel records, releasable. The AG identified ten records as plain personnel records, which means they must be released with appropriate redactions: a January 16, 2026 letter from the former employee to the Water Department and Mayor; a screenshot of a text message; a December 23, 2025 letter from the former employee to the City Council; a December 9, 2025 letter from the former employee; a December 17, 2025 statement signed by a supervisor; June 16, 2025 handwritten notes; a December 10, 2025 letter from the City regarding the grievance; a December 12, 2025 appeal letter from the former employee; a December 12, 2025 amendment letter from the former employee; and a February 2026 email chain. These are records about an individual employee that were not created by the employer to evaluate the employee. They have to come out under the Young v. Rice test (the privacy interests are not strong enough to outweigh the public interest), but with the standard redactions: personal contact info, medical info, employee ID numbers, marital status, DOB, SSN, driver's license, family member names, banking info, intimate financial detail.

Workplace policies with the employee's name. The signed policies the former employee acknowledged also count as personnel records, because the employee's name handwritten on them makes them about that individual and they were not created to evaluate the employee.

Termination letter, employee-evaluation record. The December 8, 2025 termination letter that explains the reason for the firing is an evaluation record under the Thomas v. Hall (2012) framework. It can be released only if all four elements of the test are met: (1) the employee was suspended or terminated (yes); (2) the suspension/termination is administratively final (yes); (3) the records formed a basis for the decision (yes, the letter gives the reasons); and (4) the public has a compelling interest in disclosure (open question, fact-specific). The AG declined to make element 4 for the custodian. The custodian has to look at the employee's rank, the nature of the alleged infraction (e.g., violation of public trust, gross incompetence, illegal conduct, public-safety risk), and any public controversy and decide whether the public interest is compelling. If yes, the letter goes out; if no, it must be withheld.

City-attorney emails: also employee-evaluation records. Two emails from the city attorney (December 5 and September 16, 2025) were created by or at the behest of the employer and evaluated whether termination was warranted. Same four-part test applies. The compelling-interest call is the same fact-specific question.

Social worker's letter, personnel record, apparently properly withheld. The letter is about the former employee but does not detail job performance, so it is a personnel record (not an evaluation record). The custodian applied the Young v. Rice balancing test and concluded disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The AG agreed: from the face of the record, withholding it is consistent with FOIA.

What this means for you

City records custodians

The AG found that the decision to withhold the whole file under the personnel-record privacy exemption was mostly inconsistent with FOIA. The listed personnel records and signed workplace policies are subject to release with applicable redactions. The custodian must review those records for protected information before release. The December 8 termination letter and the December 5 and September 16 city-attorney emails are evaluation records. Their release depends on all four statutory conditions, including a compelling public interest that the AG could not determine from the information provided.

Former employee and FOIA requester

The AG treated the listed correspondence, notes, screenshot, email chain and signed policies as personnel records subject to release with any applicable redactions. He found that withholding the social worker's letter appeared consistent with FOIA. He left the compelling-interest determination for the termination letter and two city-attorney emails to the custodian.

Common questions

Q: What is the difference between a "personnel record" and an "employee-evaluation record"? A: Personnel records pertain to an employee but were not created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate the employee. Examples: employment applications, grievance letters, signed policies, payroll records. Employee-evaluation records were created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate the employee, and they detail job performance. Examples: performance reviews, termination letters that give reasons, internal counsel emails analyzing whether to fire.

Q: What is the Young v. Rice "balancing test"?
A: A two-step test for personnel records. Step 1: does the information give rise to more than a minimal privacy interest? If no, release. If yes, step 2: does the public's interest in disclosure outweigh the privacy interest? The thumb is on the scale toward disclosure.

Q: What is the four-part test for employee-evaluation records? A: All four elements must be met for release: (1) employee was suspended or terminated; (2) the suspension or termination is administratively final; (3) the records formed a basis for the decision; (4) the public has a compelling interest in disclosure. Miss any element and the record stays confidential.

Q: What makes the public interest "compelling"?
A: AG opinions cite four recurring factor sets: nature of the infraction (illegal conduct, public-trust violation, gross incompetence, sexual harassment, public-safety risk); existence of public controversy; employee's rank (high-rank cases more often meet the test than rank-and-file); and broader public concern. The categories are not exhaustive.

Q: Can the employee block release by saying it would invade their privacy? A: An employee cannot block release on that basis alone. The Young v. Rice test is objective. The fact that the employee considers release an invasion is irrelevant. The custodian applies the test based on the record's content, not the employee's preference.

Q: Does this opinion decide whether the termination letter must be released? A: No. The AG found that suspension or termination, finality and relevance appeared satisfied. He said the custodian must determine whether a compelling public interest exists. Without it, the letter must be withheld. The same four-part test governs the two city-attorney emails.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas FOIA at A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) protects personnel records from release "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," the standard the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted in Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), as requiring a two-step balancing test that tilts toward disclosure.

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) provides the four-part test for employee-evaluation/job-performance records: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, and compelling public interest. Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387, and Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466, set the working definition of employee-evaluation records as those (a) created by or at the behest of the employer (b) to evaluate the employee (c) that detail job performance.

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) authorizes custodians, requesters, and subjects of certain employee-related records to obtain an AG opinion on whether a custodian's decision is consistent with FOIA. This is the procedural vehicle the Lincoln city attorney used here.

Statutory redaction triggers: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information), § 25-19-105(b)(2) (medical information about treatment or diagnosis), § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers used for computer security). The opinion also lists marital status, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, family members' names, banking information, and other intimate financial detail as information to redact when applicable.

A bare-fact termination letter that "merely reflects the fact of termination, without elaboration" is a personnel record (see, e.g., Op. 2013-155 cited in the opinion). A letter that explains the reasons for termination is an evaluation record.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (FOIA exemptions and procedures)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-103 (definitions)

Cases:

• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (employee-evaluation record definition)
• Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466
• Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
• Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987)

Source

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

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2026-023

March 5, 2026

Mr. Steven S. Zega
Lincoln City Attorney
Post Office Box 1400
111 Holcomb Street
Springdale, Arkansas 72765

Dear Mr. Zega:

You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made on behalf of 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.

You report that someone made a FOIA request to the City of Lincoln for records pertaining to a terminated city employee. Specifically, the requester asked for documents, such as “emails and other written forms of communication, supporting a recommendation for termination and all appeals for the termination submitted by the employee.”

The custodian has classified the responsive records as personnel records and intends to withhold them under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) “because disclosure of the records would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the now-former employee’s personal privacy.” You state that while the employee “objects to the release of the records,” the requestor “does not agree with the custodian that the release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

You have provided unredacted copies of the records for my review and have asked whether they are exempt from release under the FOIA.

RESPONSE

The custodian’s decision to withhold all records under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) is mostly inconsistent with the FOIA. The majority of the records are “personnel records” subject to release with any necessary redactions. By contrast, the termination letter and certain emails from the city attorney are employee-evaluation or job-performance records, which should be withheld unless

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Mr. Steven S. Zega
Opinion No. 2026-023
Page 2

the public has a compelling interest in their disclosure—a determination the custodian must make by applying the appropriate test. The custodian’s decision to withhold the social worker’s letter under the personnel records balancing test appears consistent with the FOIA.

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.1 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.2 Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.3

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the City of Lincoln, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA.4 And the records at issue appear to be public records.5 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records,6 although that presumption is rebuttable.7 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 files8 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

1
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(13)(B) (including “municipalities” as public entities).
5
The FOIA defines public records as “writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium, required by law to be kept or otherwise kept, and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions … carried out by a public official or employee.” A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A). 6 Id.
7
See Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440–41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722 (2007) (“[T]he presumption of public record status established by the FOIA can be rebutted if the records do not otherwise fall within the definition found in the first sentence, i.e., if they do not ‘constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions.’” (quoting Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-095)). 8 “Personnel files” are not referenced in the FOIA but typically includes the following documents: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents such as information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health- and life-insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records; requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal documents such as subpoenas. E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-104, 97-368; John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 203–04 (6th ed. 2017). Mr. Steven S. Zega Opinion No. 2026-023 Page 3

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.9 When a portion of a record is mixed, the custodian should apply the applicable tests for disclosure to that portion of the record.

3. Personnel records. The following records are best classified as “personnel records” subject to
   release under the FOIA 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.10

   • The January 16, 2026 letter from the former employee to the City of Lincoln Water
   Department and Mayor;11

   • the screenshot of a text message;

   • the December 23, 2025 letter from the former employee to the City Council;

   • the December 9, 2025 letter from the former employee;

   • the December 17, 2025 statement signed by a supervisor;

   • the June 16, 2025 handwritten notes;

   • the December 10, 2025 letter from the City of Lincoln concerning the former employee’s
   December 9, 2025 grievance letter;

   • the December 12, 2025 letter of appeal from the former employee to the Mayor;

   • the December 12, 2025 amendment letter from the former employee; and

   • the February 2026 email chain.

Personnel records are open to public inspection except “to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”12 While the FOIA does not define the phrase “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” the Arkansas Supreme Court has

9
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2020-037.
10
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 1999-147; Watkins et al., supra note 8, at 202.
11
There are duplicate copies of this record.
12
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
Mr. Steven S. Zega
Opinion No. 2026-023
Page 4

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.13 The balancing test, which takes place with a thumb on the scale in favor of disclosure, has two steps.14

First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested record is of such a personal or intimate nature that it gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest. 15 If the privacy interest is minimal, then disclosure is required.

Second, if the information gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest, then the custodian must determine whether that privacy interest is outweighed by the public’s interest in disclosure.16

The fact that the subject of any personnel records may consider the release of such records an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective.17

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);18 medical information about the employee that concerns the nature, treatment, or diagnosis of a medical condition, including test results;19 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;20 marital status of public employees;21 dates of birth of public employees;22 social security numbers;23 driver’s license numbers;24 names of

13
308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
14
Watkins et al., supra note 8, at 208.
15
Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
16
Id.
17
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198.
18
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
19
Id. § 25-19-105(b)(2); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2000-232, 99-110, 95-262.
20
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070. Public employee personnel numbers are exempt from disclosure because “these numbers presumably provide access to computerized data, and records containing ‘personal identification numbers’ used for computer security functions are specifically exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.” Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2022-032; see also A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11). 21 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
22
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
23
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
24
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
Mr. Steven S. Zega
Opinion No. 2026-023
Page 5

children, spouses, and ex-spouses;25 banking information;26 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.”27

Before releasing the personnel records listed above, the custodian must review the contents of the records to ensure the appropriate redactions have been made.

4. Workplace policies. Typically, a copy of a workplace policy, by itself, constitutes neither a
   personnel record nor an evaluation record, so it falls outside the scope of my review under A.C.A.
   § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). If, however, a workplace policy contains additional information that pertains to an individual employee and was not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee, it is best classified as a “personnel record” subject to release.28 In my opinion, the employee’s name handwritten on the workplace policies make such records “personnel records” subject to release, with any applicable redactions.

5. Termination letter. The December 8, 2025 termination letter 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.29 If the letter “merely reflect[ed] the fact of termination, without elaboration,” then it would be a “personnel record.”30 But here, the letter gives the reason for the termination, making it an employee-evaluation or job-performance record.

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

25
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237.
26
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
27
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.
28
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-063, 2025-059, 2025-049, 2024-067, 2008-053 (including signed acknowledgements of policies and procedures as personnel records). But see Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-326, 2002- 210 (opining that just an “excerpt from the Department’s Policies and Procedures” is neither a personnel record nor an employee-evaluation or job-performance record). 29 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-049, 2023-041, 2014-052, 2013-155, 2006-147, 2001-276, 95-171.
30
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2013-155.
Mr. Steven S. Zega
Opinion No. 2026-023
Page 6

• Compelling interest. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question.31

As for the fourth element, the FOIA does not define the phrase “compelling public interest.” But this Office and leading commentators on the FOIA have noted that whether there is a compelling public interest in releasing employee-evaluation or job-performance records turns on a few factors: (1) the nature of the infraction that led to suspension or termination, like a violation of public trust or gross incompetence; (2) the existence of a public controversy related to the agency and its employees; and (3) the employee’s rank within the agency.32 The third factor likely is “present when a high-level employee is involved versus when the [records] of ‘rank-and-file’ workers are at issue.”33

This Office has long determined that there is a compelling interest in releasing records that concern illegal conduct,34 sexual harassment or misconduct,35 public trust,36 and public safety.37 Such categories are not exhaustive.38

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, the termination is administratively final, and the records appear to detail the grounds for the termination, it is unclear whether the fourth element is satisfied. That is, it is unclear from the information provided whether the public has a compelling interest in the termination letter’s disclosure. The mere fact that the person in question is a public employee is insufficient to meet the fourth element. The custodian must determine whether this last element is met. If it is not met, then the December 8, 2025 termination letter must be withheld from release.

6. City attorney emails. Because the December 5, 2025 and September 16, 2025 emails from the
   city attorney were both made by or at the behest of the employer and evaluate whether termination was warranted based on specific reasons set out in the emails, they are best classified as employee-

31
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).
32
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 99-361, 99-148, 99-147, 99-041, 98-122, 98-006; Watkins, et al., supra note 8, at 239.
33
Watkins, et al., supra note 8, at 237; Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 96-258 (concerning a vice president of an agency), 95- 109 (concerning a director of a regional agency). 34 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-144.
35
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-032, 2004-012, 2002-095, 99-361.
36
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2008-090 (violating administrative rules or policies “aimed at conduct which undermine the public trust”), 2006-106, 2001-147, 97-400. 37 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2003-072, 2001-343, 98-210, 98-075, 97-400, 92-319.
38
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-091.
Mr. Steven S. Zega
Opinion No. 2026-023
Page 7

evaluation or job-performance records.39 Therefore, these emails cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met: suspension or termination; administrative finality; relevance; and compelling public interest. As discussed above, whether a compelling public interest exists is a factual determination that the custodian must make.

7. Social worker letter. The letter in question is best classified as a personnel record because it is
   about the former employee but does not detail the employee’s performance or lack of performance on the job. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the custodian applied the Young v. Rice test and determined that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. From the face of the record, the decision to withhold this letter appears consistent with the FOIA.

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

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

39
Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, at 8–9, 399 S.W.3d 387, 392; see also Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, at 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 466, 471 (noting that “[o]ur supreme court has approved” the definition of employee- evaluation records developed by the Attorney General’s Office); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-057, 2009-067, 2006- 038, 2003-073, 95-351, 93-055.