Can Arkansas release an employee's personnel file if personal identifiers are redacted?

Plain-English summary

A Department of Public Safety employee asked the Attorney General to review the custodian's decision to release her personnel file, which someone had requested under FOIA. The custodian had gathered 16 records, classified them as personnel records, redacted certain personal details, and planned to release them; the employee objected. Attorney General Tim Griffin concluded the custodian handled it correctly.

Personnel records (records about an employee that were not created to evaluate them) are open to the public unless disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Arkansas courts apply a balancing test, tipped in favor of access, that weighs the public's interest in the records against the employee's privacy interest. The AG found the 16 records were properly treated as personnel records subject to release, and that the custodian had already redacted the categories of personal information that should come out: the employee's personal contact information, Social Security number, date of birth, personnel number, and information about marital status and dependents. With those redactions in place, releasing the records is consistent with the FOIA.

What this means for you

Public employees whose personnel file is requested

Based on this opinion, your personnel file is generally open to the public, but the sensitive personal identifiers in it (Social Security number, date of birth, home contact information, personnel number, and marital and dependent details) are the kind of information a custodian is expected to redact before release. Objecting to release of the file as a whole will not usually keep an ordinary personnel record closed.

Records custodians

The opinion models a compliant personnel-record release: classify the records, apply the privacy balancing test, and redact the specific personal identifiers the FOIA protects before disclosure. The AG treated the listed redactions (contact information, Social Security number, date of birth, personnel number, marital status and dependents) as proper.

FOIA requesters and journalists

For an ordinary state-employee personnel file, this opinion supports disclosure, with the understanding that personal identifiers will be blacked out. What you receive is the substance of the personnel record minus the private identifying details.

Common questions

Q: Are public employees' personnel files open to the public in Arkansas?
A: Generally yes. Personnel records are open unless disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," which courts evaluate with a balancing test weighted toward public access.

Q: What information gets redacted from a personnel file before release?
A: In this opinion the AG approved redacting the employee's personal contact information, Social Security number, date of birth, personnel number, and information about marital status and dependents.

Q: How does the privacy "balancing test" work?
A: Under Young v. Rice, the custodian first asks whether the information is personal or intimate enough to create a greater-than-minimal privacy interest; if not, it must be disclosed. If there is such an interest, the custodian weighs it against the public's interest in disclosure, with the scale tipped in favor of access.

Q: Can an employee block release just by objecting?
A: No. The subject can ask the Attorney General to review the custodian's decision, but if the records are properly classified personnel records and the required identifiers are redacted, the objection does not keep them closed.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas's FOIA lets the subject, requester, or custodian of certain employee-related records ask the Attorney General to review a custodian's release decision (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)). Records held by a public entity are presumed public (A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A); Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)), and the general disclosure test comes from Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511.

Personnel records are governed by A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), which keeps them open except where disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The two-step balancing test for that standard comes from Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), and Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998). The FOIA separately requires redaction of specific identifiers such as Social Security numbers (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) and (b)(13)).

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (subject/requester/custodian may seek an AG opinion)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records; unwarranted-privacy-invasion exemption)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (redaction of certain identifying information)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (redaction of specific personal identifiers)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(15)(A) (definition of public record)

Cases:
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511, general FOIA disclosure test
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007), rebuttable public-record presumption
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), privacy balancing test
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998), personal-privacy standard

Source

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

Original opinion text

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-053
May 28, 2026
Ms. Sherita Washington
Arkansas Department of Public Safety

1 State Police Plaza Drive

Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
Dear Ms. Washington:
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 correspondence we received from the records custodian, the Arkansas Department
of Public Safety received a FOIA request for your personnel file. The custodian has provided me
with a redacted copy of 16 records he has classified as personnel records and intends to release.
You object to the release of these records, and you ask if the custodian’s decisions are consistent
with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified these records as personnel records that are
subject to release. And the custodian has also properly redacted your personal contact information,
Social Security number, date of birth, personnel number, and information related to marital status
and dependents.
DISCUSSION
1. General rules. A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if (1) the request
was directed to an entity subject to the FOIA, (2) the requested document is a public record, and
(3) no exceptions allow the document to be withheld.1
1 Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, at 8, 402 S.W.3d 511, 515.

Ms. Sherita Washington
Opinion No. 2026-053
Page 2
The first two elements appear to be met. The request was made to the Arkansas Department of
Public Safety—a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the records at issue appear to be public
records.
2 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records,
3
although that presumption is rebuttable.4 I have no information to suggest that the presumption
can be rebutted here, so I will focus on whether any exceptions prevent the documents’ disclosure.
For FOIA purposes, documents in a public employee’s file can usually be divided into two distinct
groups: “personnel records”5 and “employee evaluation or job performance records.”6 Personnel
records are records that pertain to an individual employee that were not created by or at the behest
of the employer to evaluate the employee.
7 Employee evaluation and job-performance records, on
the other hand, are records (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the
employee (3) that detail the employee’s performance or lack of performance on the job.8
The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. When
reviewing documents to determine whether to release 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. Because the records at issue here
are personnel records, I will restrict my analysis to that category of records.
2 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).
3 Id.
4 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)).
5 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (“It is the specific intent of this section that the following shall not be deemed to be made
open to the public under the provisions of this chapter … [p]ersonnel records to the extent that disclosure would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”).
6 Id. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (“[A]ll employee evaluation or job performance records, including preliminary notes and other
materials, shall be open to public inspection only upon final administrative resolution of any suspension or termination
proceeding at which the records form a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee and if there is a
compelling public interest in their disclosure”).
7 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 1999-147.
8 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, 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,
1995-351, 1993-055.

Ms. Sherita Washington
Opinion No. 2026-053
Page 3
2. Personnel records. A personnel record is open to public inspection except “to the extent that
disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”9 While the FOIA
does not define the phrase “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” the Arkansas
Supreme Court has 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.10 The balancing test, which takes place “with the scale tipped in favor of public
access,” has two steps.11
First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested document is of
a personal or intimate nature such that it gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest.12 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.13
Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the person resisting disclosure bears the
burden of showing that, under the circumstances, the employee’s privacy interests outweigh the
public’s interests.14 The fact that the subject of the records may consider release of the records an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is
objective.15
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain
discrete pieces of information that must be redacted,
16 such as personal contact information of
public employees (including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses);
17
employee personnel numbers or identification codes;18 marital status of public employees;19
9 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
10 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
11 John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 208 (6th ed. 2017).
12 Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
13 Id.
14 Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998).
15 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-028, 1994-198; Watkins et al., supra note 11, at 207.
16 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f).
17 Id. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
18 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).
19 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.

Ms. Sherita Washington
Opinion No. 2026-053
Page 4
information about children and dependents;20 dates of birth of public employees;21 Social Security
numbers;22 driver’s license numbers;23 insurance coverage;24 tax information or withholdings;25
payroll deductions;26 net pay;27 banking information;28 and other financial “records that would
divulge intimate financial detail.”29
3. Application. The records at issue are best classified as personnel records because they relate to
you but were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate you. A personnel record
must be released when the public’s interest in the record outweighs the employee’s privacy interest
in the document. Aside from the information that has been redacted, these records do not contain
information that is of a private or intimate nature. In my opinion, any privacy interest that you may
have in these documents is far outweighed by the “thumb on the scale favoring disclosure.” Thus,
the custodian’s decision to release the documents is consistent with the FOIA.
With respect to redactions, the custodian has properly identified and redacted certain information,
including your personal contact information, Social Security number, date of birth, personnel
number, and information related to marital status and dependents. Disclosure of this information
would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of your privacy, so the custodian’s decision to redact this
information is consistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
20 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2018-083, 2001-080.
21 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
22 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
23 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
24 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
25 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
26 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 1998-126.
27 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 1998-126.
28 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
29 Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 1998-126, 1995-242, 1995-110, 1994-235, 1991-093, 1987-422.