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?
Plain-English summary
Janiya Pettus, an employee of the Pulaski County Clerk's office, was the subject of a FOIA request for her personnel file. Her employer planned to release the personnel records with statutory redactions and to withhold her employee-evaluation and job-performance records (which under Arkansas FOIA face a stricter disclosure test). Pettus did not object to the redactions or the form of the release. She objected to the release going to this particular requester, on suspicion of the requester's motives.
AG Tim Griffin concluded that the custodian's plan was generally correct. Two refinements:
- Health insurance coverage information was added to the redaction list. Multiple prior AG opinions had treated insurance coverage as personal financial detail subject to redaction under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12)'s "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" standard.
- Beneficiary designation information, including the beneficiary's name, the relationship to the employee, and the amount each beneficiary is designated to receive, also required redaction.
On Pettus's main objection, the AG was direct: under FOIA, the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant. The custodian's job is to apply FOIA to the records, not to filter requesters by their motives. AG opinions had repeatedly said this since at least 2006, and the rule had not changed.
Pettus's employee-evaluation and job-performance records would stay sealed because they did not meet the FOIA test for disclosure of those records (which under § 25-19-105(c)(1) requires that the employee have suspended without pay or terminated for violating workplace policies, that the records relate to that incident, and that there is a "compelling public interest" in disclosure).
What this means for you
If you are a public employee in Arkansas and someone files a FOIA request for your personnel file, your employer must release the records subject to required redactions. You cannot block the release by raising concerns about the requester's intent. Your useful interventions are: identifying redactions the custodian missed (especially personal contact info, financial detail, health insurance, beneficiary designations, social security and driver's license numbers, dates of birth, and similar items), confirming whether your evaluations qualify for the heightened test under § 25-19-105(c)(1), and asking the AG for an opinion under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) if you disagree with the custodian's decision.
If you are a FOIA records custodian, the simple rule from this opinion: do not consider the requester's motives. Run your usual analysis. Personnel records get released subject to the standard redaction list. Evaluation records get released only when they meet the strict three-part § 25-19-105(c)(1) test. Health insurance coverage and beneficiary designation are on the redaction list along with the more obvious items (SSN, DOB, banking, payroll deductions).
If you are filing a FOIA request and the subject objects, the subject's complaint about your motives is not a basis for withholding. The records will be released subject to redactions. If the custodian denies for other reasons, you can request an AG opinion under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) or seek judicial review.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas's FOIA at Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq. establishes a strong public-records presumption tempered by enumerated exemptions. Three exemptions matter for the personnel-records context:
- § 25-19-105(b)(12): personal-privacy exemption applied to personnel records, releasing them "to the extent that disclosure would [not] constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Arkansas Supreme Court applied a balancing test in Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992), with the scale tipped in favor of disclosure.
- § 25-19-105(b)(13): personal contact information of public employees, phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses: is exempt regardless of the balancing test.
- § 25-19-105(c)(1): employee-evaluation and job-performance records get a tougher test for release: the employee must have been suspended without pay or terminated for violating policy, the records must relate to that violation, and there must be a "compelling public interest" in disclosure.
Section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) gives the custodian, requester, or subject the right to seek an AG opinion on whether the custodian's decision is consistent with FOIA. The AG opinion is binding within the office's internal workflow but not binding on courts.
The redaction list that has built up over decades of AG opinions covers: home addresses, dates of birth, personal phone and email, personnel numbers (computer security exemption), social security and driver's license numbers, marital status of public employees, names of children and dependents, insurance coverage, tax information and withholdings, payroll deductions, net pay, banking information, and "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
Common questions
Q: Can I block release of my personnel file by objecting to the requester?
A: No. Under Arkansas FOIA, the requester's intent and motives are generally irrelevant. Your remedy is to confirm the redactions are complete and to seek an AG opinion if you disagree with the custodian's analysis.
Q: What information must be redacted from personnel records before release?
A: Standard redactions include home address, date of birth, personal phone numbers and email addresses, personnel/employee ID numbers, social security number, driver's license number, payroll deductions, tax withholdings, banking information, marital status of public employees, names of children, health insurance coverage details, and beneficiary designation (name, relationship, and amount).
Q: Are my employee evaluations also released?
A: Probably not. Employee-evaluation and job-performance records have a separate, stricter test under § 25-19-105(c)(1). They are disclosable only when (1) the employee was suspended without pay or terminated for violating workplace policy, (2) the records relate to that violation, and (3) there is a compelling public interest in disclosure. Most evaluations don't meet that test.
Q: How does the AG decide if a redaction is justified?
A: The AG applies the Young v. Rice balancing test for personnel records: first, whether the information is of a personal or intimate nature giving rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest; second, whether that privacy interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure. The thumb is on the disclosure side of the scale, and prior AG opinions have built up a list of categorically protected information.
Q: What about health insurance information?
A: The AG specifically added health insurance coverage to the redaction list in this opinion, citing prior AG opinions. The reasoning is that insurance coverage is intimate financial detail, and disclosure provides little public benefit while exposing personal information.
Q: Why beneficiary designation in particular?
A: Under prior AG opinions, the beneficiary's full name, the employee's relationship to the beneficiary, and the amounts each beneficiary will receive, are all redactable. The information reveals family structure and financial planning that is personal in nature.
Q: Can I find out who requested my personnel records?
A: Generally yes, but not as a precondition to withholding. The FOIA process keeps the request itself part of the record. Your knowing the requester does not change the disclosure analysis.
Citations and references
Arkansas statutes:
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)
Prior AG opinions cited:
- 2025-059, 2023-085, 2016-129, 2004-167 (health insurance)
- 2025-059, 2008-163, 2000-306 (beneficiary designation)
- 2008-163 (specific beneficiary fields)
- 2014-094, 2011-095, 2006-118 (requester intent irrelevant)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
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.
You 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 include information related to your health insurance coverage and to your beneficiary designation, including your beneficiary's name and your relationship to that person.
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. 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