Are leave balances, vacation accruals, and PTO records of an Arkansas city fire department employee subject to release under FOIA?
Subject
City of Fayetteville received a FOIA request for a fire department employee's leave balances, accrual rates, leave taken from October 1, 2025 onward, and any scheduled future PTO. The custodian identified two responsive records and intended to release them with one redaction. The subject of the records objected. AG Griffin agreed with the custodian: payroll-type records are personnel records subject to release.
Plain-English summary
This is a clean, simple application of Arkansas's FOIA framework to leave-balance records.
A FOIA requester asked the City of Fayetteville for current leave balances (vacation, PTO, sick, comp time), the employee's accrual rates, leave taken since October 2025, and any approved future PTO for a specific Fire Department employee. The custodian found two responsive records (an "Hours Analysis Report" and a sick/vacation leave document) and proposed to release them with one redaction. The subject of the records objected. The city attorney asked the AG.
The AG approved release. The reasoning is short because the law is settled: payroll records, including those covering sick leave, vacation time, comp time, and benefit information, are personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12). They are personnel records because they pertain to an individual employee but were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Personnel records are subject to release unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the Young v. Rice balancing test.
Leave-balance records do not clear that bar. The AG's office has consistently opined this since at least 1994.
The subject's personal objection to release is irrelevant. The personal-privacy test is objective.
A personnel record subject to release may still contain pieces of information that must be redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(13) and elsewhere:
- Personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses (under § 25-19-105(b)(13)).
- Employee personnel numbers or identification codes (under § 25-19-105(b)(11), per Op. 2022-032, because they "presumably provide access to computerized data").
- Dates of birth of public employees.
- Social security numbers.
- Banking information.
- Other financial records that "would divulge intimate financial detail."
The custodian's proposed single redaction was apparently within these categories, and the AG approved.
What this means for you
If you are a public employee whose leave records were FOIA'd
Your leave balances, accrual rates, leave taken, and approved future PTO are subject to release. Arkansas law has treated payroll-type records as personnel records subject to release for decades. The fact that you find disclosure embarrassing or unwelcome is not a legal basis to withhold them; the personal-privacy test is objective. The categorical exemptions (personal contact info, employee ID number, DOB, SSN, banking info) protect what is sensitive about you; the rest is releasable.
If you are an HR director or records custodian
For payroll-type records (leave, comp time, accrual rates, paid-time-off balances), the default release decision is straightforward: release with the standard redactions for personal contact info, employee ID numbers, DOB, SSN, and banking info. You generally do not need an AG opinion for these requests. The records are personnel records subject to release, and the personal-privacy bar to disclosure is high.
If you are uncertain on a particular fact pattern (such as a request for unusual benefit information or a record that arguably reveals intimate financial detail), use the § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) AG opinion request. But for routine leave records, just release them with the categorical redactions.
If you are a FOIA requester wanting payroll information
Public employee payroll records are accessible. Leave balances, accruals, comp time, vacation taken, and similar records will be released to you. Mandatory redactions will hide the employee's personal contact info, employee identification numbers, date of birth, social security number, and banking info. Salary information is similarly accessible. If a custodian denies your request, ask for a written explanation; the AG opinions consistently hold these records are releasable.
If you are concerned about employee privacy in payroll records
The privacy interests Arkansas law protects are concrete: personal contact info, identification numbers used for system access, DOB, SSN, banking info, and intimate financial detail. The privacy interest in your supervisor knowing your leave balances is not protected; that information is part of your job's public-records footprint. If you are a public employee and you do not want your work-related records visible to the public, that is a structural feature of public employment in Arkansas, not a deficiency the FOIA framework would address.
Background and statutory framework
The general FOIA test from Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley (1987) requires (1) request to a public entity, (2) record is a "public record" under § 25-19-103(15)(A), and (3) no exemption applies. The City of Fayetteville is a "municipality" under § 25-19-103(13)(B). Records held by a public entity are presumed public, rebuttable per Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette (2007).
The personnel-record framework in § 25-19-105(b)(12) applies. A personnel record pertains to an individual employee but was not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Personnel records are open to public inspection except where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The AG's office has consistently classified payroll records, including those for sick leave, vacation, comp time, and benefits, as personnel records subject to release. The opinion cites a long line of authority: Op. 2025-108, 2024-022, 2022-039, 2021-084, 2012-014, 2011-132, 2008-129, 2002-107, 98-126, 96-205, and 94-198.
The personal-privacy test is objective. The subject's subjective opposition does not affect the outcome (Op. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198).
Mandatory redactions:
- Personal contact information of public employees, including personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses (§ 25-19-105(b)(13)).
- Employee personnel numbers or identification codes (§ 25-19-105(b)(11), per Op. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070; because they "presumably provide access to computerized data, and records containing 'personal identification numbers' used for computer security functions are specifically exempt").
- Dates of birth of public employees (Op. 2007-064).
- Social security numbers (Op. 2006-035, 2003-153).
- Banking information (Op. 2005-194).
- Other financial records that would divulge intimate financial detail (Op. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422).
The custodian's one redaction here apparently fell within these categories, so the AG approved release.
Common questions
Are public employee leave balances really public records?
Yes. The AG's office has consistently held that payroll-type records are personnel records subject to FOIA release. The privacy interest a public employee has in leave records is not strong enough to qualify as a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Can the employee block release by objecting?
No. The personal-privacy test under § 25-19-105(b)(12) is objective. The subject's subjective preference is irrelevant. The AG has reiterated this in many opinions, including Op. 2022-032 and 2014-094.
What information must be redacted from leave records?
The standard set: personal phone numbers, personal email addresses, home addresses, employee identification numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, banking information, and other intimate financial detail.
Why is an employee identification number redacted?
Under Op. 2022-032, employee personnel numbers are exempt because they "presumably provide access to computerized data," and § 25-19-105(b)(11) specifically exempts records containing "personal identification numbers" used for computer security functions. Releasing the number could let an outsider use it to access secured data.
Are salary records subject to the same rule?
Yes. The same line of AG opinions treats salary, pay rate, and similar payroll information as personnel records subject to release with categorical redactions for the personal data above.
What about leave I took for confidential medical reasons?
The leave balance and the dates of leave taken are releasable. The reason for the leave (specific medical condition) is generally NOT in the leave-balance record itself. If a record exists that ties leave to a specific medical condition (such as an FMLA documentation file), that record may be governed by HIPAA or another privacy law, not just the FOIA's personnel-records framework.
Can future scheduled PTO be released?
Yes. The AG approved release here, and the FOIA request specifically asked for "currently scheduled or approved future PTO." That is part of the leave-balance record.
What if the employee is a high-profile official?
Same rule. The personnel-record framework applies regardless of the employee's rank. The compelling-public-interest analysis that affects evaluation records under § 25-19-105(c)(1) does not modify the personal-privacy analysis under § 25-19-105(b)(12).
Citations
- Arkansas FOIA statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-103(13)(B) (public entity definition includes municipalities); § 25-19-103(15)(A) (definition of public records); § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers exempt); § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records); § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact info redaction); § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion request authority).
- General FOIA cases: Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987); Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007).
- Prior AG opinions on payroll/leave records: Op. 2025-108, 2024-022, 2022-039, 2021-084, 2012-014, 2011-132, 2008-129, 2002-107, 98-126, 96-205, 94-198.
- Prior AG opinions on subject-objection irrelevance: Op. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198.
- Prior AG opinions on mandatory redactions: Op. 2022-032 (employee ID numbers); Op. 2007-064 (DOB); Op. 2006-035 and 2003-153 (SSN); Op. 2005-194 (banking and intimate financial detail); Op. 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422 (intimate financial detail).
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-028
March 20, 2026
Mr. Blake Pennington
Senior Assistant City Attorney
113 West Mountain Street, Suite 302
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Mr. Pennington:
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 Fayetteville for records pertaining to a City Fire Department employee. Specifically, the requester asked for "[c]urrent leave balances as of March 16, 2026 including vacation leave, PTO, sick leave, and comp time"; the "employee's leave accrual rate for vacation, sick leave or PTO"; "[r]ecords reflecting leave taken between October 1, 2025 and the present, including the dates and numbers of hours used"; and "[a]ny currently scheduled or approved future PTO or vacation as of March 16, 2026."
The custodian has identified two records, an "Hours Analysis Report" and a document concerning sick leave and vacation leave, as responsive to this request, and the custodian intends to disclose both with one redaction.
You have provided redacted copies of the records for my review and have asked whether they are exempt from release under the FOIA. The subject of the records objects to the release of the records.
RESPONSE
The custodian's decision to release the records as redacted is consistent with the FOIA.
DISCUSSION
- 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 the City of Fayetteville, 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.
- Personnel records. This Office has consistently concluded that payroll records, including those concerning sick leave, vacation time, comp time, or benefit information, are "personnel records" subject to release under the FOIA because they pertain to an individual employee; they are not employee-evaluation or job-performance records created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee; and they are not clearly unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. 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.
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); employee personnel numbers or identification codes; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; banking information; and other financial "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
Therefore, based on the information you have provided with your opinion request, it is my opinion that the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General