When a public employee's personnel records get a FOIA request, can the employee block release by objecting to the requester's motives or what the requester might do with the records?

Subject

Whether an employee's objection to a FOIA requester's motives justifies withholding her personnel records, and whether the planned redactions are sufficient.

Plain-English summary

The employee's employer planned to release personnel records with redactions under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) and (b)(13), while withholding evaluation and job-performance records because they did not meet § 25-19-105(c)(1)'s disclosure criteria. She objected to disclosure to this particular requester because she suspected the requester's motives and was concerned about what the requester might do with the records.

The AG said the custodian's plan was generally consistent with FOIA. He identified two more kinds of information for redaction: health insurance coverage and beneficiary designation information. His third footnote quotes an earlier AG opinion specifying the beneficiary's full name, relationship to the employee, and amount each beneficiary is designated to receive.

The AG also said a requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant when the custodian decides whether public records must be disclosed. The employee's concern about this requester was therefore insufficient to withhold the records.

What this means for you

Public employees

This opinion does not allow an employee to prevent a planned FOIA release based on suspicion of the requester's motives. It does identify health insurance and beneficiary designation information as additional material to redact from the personnel records considered here.

Records custodians and requesters

The AG found the planned release of redacted personnel records and withholding of evaluation records generally consistent with FOIA. The additional redactions he identified concern insurance coverage and beneficiary designation. His conclusion about requester motive addresses this employee's stated objection; the opinion gives no separate analysis of other records or reasons for withholding.

Common questions

Q: Can an employee block release by objecting to the requester? A: The AG said the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant to disclosure, so this employee's objection was insufficient.

Q: What additional redactions did the AG identify?
A: Health insurance coverage and beneficiary designation information. Footnote 3 quotes an earlier opinion naming the beneficiary's full name, relationship to the employee, and amount designated to that beneficiary.

Q: Did the AG say the employee's evaluation records should be released? A: No. The employer planned to withhold them because they did not meet § 25-19-105(c)(1)'s disclosure criteria, and the AG found that plan generally consistent with FOIA.

Background and statutory framework

The employee sought review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The opinion identifies § 25-19-105(b)(12) and (b)(13) as the provisions governing the planned personnel-record redactions and § 25-19-105(c)(1) as the provision governing evaluation records. It does not set out the elements of those tests. Its specific conclusions concern two additional redactions and the irrelevance of this requester's motives.

Citations and references

• Statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), (b)(13), (c)(1), (c)(3)(B)(i).
• Prior opinions cited in the PDF footnotes: Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-059, 2023-085, 2016-129, 2004-167, 2008-163, 2000-306, 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118.

Source

• Official opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2026-033

April 2, 2026

Ms. Janiya M. Pettus

Via email only: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Pettus:

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 your correspondence, your employer has received a FOIA request for your personnel file. Your employer plans to release your personnel records—with redactions as required by A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) and (b)(13)—but to withhold your employee-evaluation and job- performance records because they do not meet A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1)’s disclosure criteria.

Your object to the release of your records. But your objection is not about the release of the records themselves. Rather, you object to the custodian’s decision to release your personnel records to the specific requester. You are suspicious of the requester’s motives in seeking the records, and you are concerned about what the requester will ultimately do with the records.

RESPONSE

In my opinion, the custodian’s decision to release your personnel records with redactions and to withhold your evaluation records is generally consistent with the FOIA. However, I have identified two additional pieces of information that should be redacted from your personnel records. These

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Janiya M. Pettus
Opinion No. 2026-033
Page 2

include information related to your health insurance coverage 1 and to your beneficiary designation, 2 including your beneficiary’s name and your relationship to that person. 3

With respect to your specific objection, this Office has consistently opined that, under the FOIA, the requester’s intent and motives are generally irrelevant to the custodian when determining whether public records must be disclosed. 4 Therefore, your objection is not a sufficient basis for the custodian to withhold your records from disclosure.

Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

1
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-059, 2023-085, 2016-129, 2004-167.
2
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-059, 2008-163, 2000-306.
3
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2008-163 (noting that “sections labeled ‘Full Name of Beneficiary’ and ‘Relationship to Applicant’ and the amount each beneficiary is designated to receive must be redacted”). 4 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118.