Can I get my own job interview notes from a Delaware city under FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Tymir Thompkins, an existing City of Wilmington employee, applied for a different City position. Five panelists interviewed him. He filed a FOIA request asking for "the paperwork of each panelist" related to his interview.

The City denied the request under the personnel file exemption at 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1), which exempts records the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. Thompkins petitioned, arguing (1) he was only requesting his own records, so no third-party privacy was implicated, (2) interview evaluation sheets are "hiring decision materials" rather than personnel files, and (3) even if some content was sensitive, the City could redact panelist names, other applicants' information, and reusable exam questions.

The AG sided with the City. Three points:

1. The personnel file exemption applies even though the panel notes were kept in a recruitment file, not the personnel file. The AG accepted the City's argument that this is a "distinction without a difference" because Thompkins's application for a promotion meets the FOIA precedent's definition of personnel files.

2. Beyond the personnel exemption, FOIA respects the common-law right of privacy. The City argued that "the discussions of qualifications and competencies of applicants are subject to a significant privacy interest." The same logic that lets a public body discuss applicant qualifications privately under the open-meetings exception also supports keeping the resulting records confidential.

3. The identity of the requester does not change the FOIA analysis. Either a record is public, or it is not. Thompkins's status as the subject of the records does not give him a separate FOIA right of access. (His personnel-file access rights through HR are a separate channel that exists outside FOIA.)

The opinion does not foreclose Thompkins's other paths. The City clarified that any entitlement Thompkins has to his own personnel file is "outside the scope of FOIA and this petition process." HR processes, employment-discrimination charge processes, and litigation discovery are all separate channels.

What this means for you

If you are a public employee or applicant trying to get your own interview records

FOIA is generally not the right tool. The personnel file exemption at § 10002(o)(1) covers interview panel evaluations, even when you are the subject of those evaluations. Better paths: (1) your employer's HR process, which often allows employees to view some content in their own files, (2) an EEOC charge if you believe discrimination occurred, which can trigger access to records as part of the investigation, (3) if you ultimately sue, civil discovery, which is broader than FOIA.

If you are a public employer's HR director

When you receive a FOIA request from an applicant or employee for interview panel notes, deny under § 10002(o)(1) and the common-law right of privacy. Cite this opinion. Be prepared, however, that your separate internal HR processes may give the employee some access independent of FOIA.

If you are a Delaware city attorney advising on a hiring records request

Two layered defenses. First, the personnel file exemption at § 10002(o)(1) covers panel notes related to applicants, especially internal applicants whose application is, in substance, a promotion request. Second, the common-law right of privacy adds an independent basis. Build both arguments into your response.

If you are a journalist or watchdog seeking hiring records

Hiring decisions for public bodies are generally low-transparency under Delaware FOIA. Panel notes, interview evaluation sheets, and similar materials are protected. What is generally public: salary information once the hire is made, job descriptions, position announcements, and the names of those hired.

If you are an applicant who suspects bias in a hiring decision

FOIA will not get you the panel notes. Your better path is an internal grievance, an EEOC charge alleging discrimination (which can subpoena records), or civil litigation. Each of those processes has discovery tools that FOIA lacks.

Background and statutory framework

29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) exempts personnel files where disclosure would constitute "a violation of personal privacy" under FOIA or any other state or federal law. The exemption is drawn broadly. The City's argument here was that interview panel notes for an internal applicant are essentially personnel-related materials, even when filed in a separate recruitment file rather than the personnel file proper.

The opinion also draws on common-law privacy principles. Delaware FOIA exemptions are read together with Delaware's broader privacy framework. Records reflecting an applicant's qualifications and competencies, panelist evaluations, and the deliberative process behind a hiring decision implicate well-established privacy interests of multiple parties (the applicant, the panelists, other applicants).

The framework also draws on the open-meetings analog: Delaware's open-meetings exception lets a public body discuss applicant qualifications in executive session. The records exemption mirrors that protection.

The Judicial Watch standard for sworn affidavits applies, but the AG's analysis here turned on the categorical exemption rather than the search adequacy.

Common questions

Why does my own request for my own records get denied?

Because FOIA's exemptions do not turn on requester identity. Either a record is public or it is not. The privacy interest in interview panel evaluations is partly that of the applicant, but also that of the panelists (whose deliberations are protected) and indirectly the public body's own internal hiring process.

Are my regular personnel records (performance reviews, salary history) public?

Within the personnel file proper, those records are generally exempt under § 10002(o)(1). Your employer's HR processes typically give you access to some of those records outside of FOIA, but the public does not get access through FOIA either.

What if the panel notes contain information I think is wrong or biased?

FOIA is not the remedy. If you believe the hiring process was unlawful (discrimination, retaliation), file a charge with the EEOC or the Delaware Department of Labor. Those processes have investigative tools and can subpoena records.

Can the City just redact and release a partial version?

The opinion did not require redaction-plus-release because the entire category of records was exempt. In other contexts (e.g., personnel records that are partly releasable under another exemption), redaction is required. For interview panel notes, the privacy interests of multiple parties (panelists, other applicants) made the categorical exemption appropriate.

What is the "common-law right of privacy" the City invoked?

Delaware courts recognize a common-law privacy interest in personnel and applicant information that goes beyond the statutory FOIA exemptions. The City's argument was that even if the records were not specifically a "personnel file" under § 10002(o)(1), the common-law privacy interest still applies.

Does this opinion mean ALL hiring records are exempt?

Not quite. Job descriptions, the position announcement, the salary range, the name of the person hired, and similar high-level information are generally public. The exemption covers the interview process and individual evaluation records, not the whole hiring framework.

Does my recourse change if I am a private-sector applicant who later applied to the City?

No. The exemption applies regardless of whether the applicant is internal or external. The City made an internal-applicant argument here, but the framework applies to external applicants too.

Citations

• Statutes: 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) (personnel files privacy exemption); § 10003(a); § 10005; § 10005(c).
• Cases: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021).

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2026/01/09/26-ib02-01-09-2026-foia-opinion-letter-to-tymir-thompkins-re-city-of-wilmington/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2026/01/Attorney-General-Opinion-No.-26-IB02.pdf

Original opinion text

KATHLEEN JENNINGS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
820 NORTH FRENCH STREET
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Attorney General Opinion No. 26-IB02
January 9, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Tymir Thompkins
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the City of Wilmington

Dear Tymir Thompkins:
We write in response to your correspondence, alleging that City of Wilmington violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussed more fully herein, we determine that the City did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.

BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2025, you submitted a FOIA request to the City seeking records of your interview for a certain City position. You stated that there were five interview panelists, and you would like to receive "the paperwork of each panelist." The City denied access to these records, citing 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) for personnel files, the disclosure of which would constitute a violation of personal privacy under FOIA or another state or federal law. This Petition followed.

The Petition alleges that this personnel file exemption was misapplied to your request. You argue that you are only requesting your own records, and releasing records to you does not violate any third party's privacy. You also contend that FOIA requires that its exemptions be applied narrowly, and interview evaluation sheets and written notes are not employee personnel files; rather, these materials are "hiring decision materials, which are presumptively public." You assert that rather than withholding these records, the City should have provided a redacted production without the exempt information, such as panelists' names, other applicants' information, and reusable exam questions.

The City, through its legal counsel, replied to this Petition ("Response"). The City argues its assertion of the personnel file exemption was appropriate here, as you are presently employed by the City, and your application to this position constituted seeking a promotion, which would meet the definition of personnel files adopted in FOIA precedent. However, the City acknowledges that the interview panelists' notes would not become part of your personnel file, but instead, are kept within a separate recruitment file, which the City argues is a distinction without a difference. The City states that in addition to the personnel file exemption, FOIA also exempts records under the common law right of privacy. The City contends that "the discussions of qualifications and competencies of applicants are subject to a significant privacy interest," noting that these types of records are exempt for the same reasons that a public body is authorized to meet privately to discuss an individual's qualifications for public employment under the open meeting exceptions. The City asserts that the fact you seek only records pertaining to you has no bearing on the disclosure of records, because the identity of the requesting party has no bearing on a request; under FOIA, either a record is public, or it is not. The City further clarifies that this does not mean you have no recourse to review your own personnel file; rather, any entitlement to your personnel file is outside the scope of FOIA and this petition process.

DISCUSSION
Delaware's FOIA law "was enacted to ensure governmental accountability by providing Delaware's citizens access to open meetings and meeting records of governmental or public bodies, as well as access to the public records of those entities." FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for the copying of public records. The public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records. In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden.

The AG's full discussion section in the source opinion confirms that the personnel file exemption at 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(1) covers interview panel records related to a current employee's application for a different position, and that the common-law right of privacy provides an independent basis for withholding panelist evaluations. The identity of the requester does not affect FOIA's exemption analysis.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the City did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.