Could a school board circulate an employee's old personnel-file documents without notifying the employee?

Plain-English summary

A Caddo Parish school employee had two personnel files, one from earlier employment and one from a later return. The AG was told that documents from the older file were circulated to school board members without giving the employee copies, obtaining a signature, or notifying him of the access. In 2005, the Attorney General said the board's actions appeared to violate the School Employee Personnel Files Act on those facts.

The opinion drew two notice duties. Under La. R.S. 17:1234, a nonroutine document concerning an employee had to be presented to that employee before filing, with a signature acknowledging receipt rather than agreement. Separately, La. R.S. 17:81 required written notice when the board accessed the employee's personnel file, even if a majority vote authorized the board to examine all school records. The AG also described a right to submit a written rebuttal attached to the document and said documents not signed as required had to be removed. It treated the circulated recommendation about retaining the employee as an apparent evaluation or observation covered by the access restriction.

The opinion addressed the handling of documents in the two files. It did not frame the mere existence of two files, without the notice and access facts, as its reason for finding an apparent violation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the school board have to tell the employee it accessed his file?

The AG said yes. It quoted La. R.S. 17:81 as requiring written notice when a city or parish school board accessed an employee's personnel file, even where a majority vote permitted board review.

Could a school employee answer a document placed in the file?

Yes. The opinion quoted La. R.S. 17:1235 for a written rebuttal or response that became attached to the document while it remained in the file.

What happened to documents filed without the required employee signature?

The AG relied on its earlier opinion that documents not signed in accordance with La. R.S. 17:1234 had to be removed. It concluded that, on the facts supplied, this employee was entitled to removal under that provision.

Were board members free to view every employee record individually?

The quoted La. R.S. 17:81 provision excluded certain evaluations, observations, complaints, and grievances from the individual-member access rule. It separately allowed a board majority to examine all records, with employee notice and confidentiality obligations.

Background and statutory framework

A legislator asked about distribution of records from an employee's 1976–1978 file after a later employment period began in 2003. The AG applied La. R.S. 17:1234's document-presentation and signature rule, La. R.S. 17:81's board-access and notice rules, and La. R.S. 17:1235's rebuttal and removal provisions. It also cited La. R.S. 17:1237 on disclosure to third parties and earlier AG opinions on board access. Its conclusion was expressly based on the information provided about the files and their circulation.

Citations

• La. R.S. 17:1234 (document presentation and receipt signature).
• La. R.S. 17:81 (board access, written notice, and confidentiality).
• La. R.S. 17:1235 (rebuttal and response rights).
• La. R.S. 17:1237 (third-party disclosure discussed by the AG).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/05-0338

Original opinion text

November 7, 2005
Opinion Number 05-0338

94 Schools and School Districts - Administration, Government, and Officers

La. R.S. 17:1232-1238
The Honorable Mike Powell La. R.S. 17:81
State Representative - Dist. 6
School employee shall be given notice of each document 333 Texas Street, Suite 717 placed in his personnel file concerning the employee,
Shreveport, LA 71101
otherwise, the employee is entitled to have the documents
removed from his personnel file.
Dear Representative Powell:

This office is in receipt of your opinion request regarding the School Employee Personnel Files Act (La. R.S. 17:1232-1238). We have also learned through the information provided by Charlotte Crawley that the Caddo Parish School Board maintains two separate files for a certain employee. One file contains documents concerning his employment in 1976-1978, while the other contains documents relating to his employment beginning in 2003. Apparently the 2003 file doesn’t contain any of the documents from the 1976-1978 file except for a memorandum that refers to the previous file stating “you should also view a second file.”

According to Charlotte Crawley, in October of 2004 the school board distributed copies of documents from the employee’s 1976 file to members of the Caddo Parish School Board without presenting the employee with a copy of the documents, without obtaining his signature, and without notifying him that the documents would be distributed to the school board members. Additionally the employee has not seen, signed, or had the opportunity to present a rebuttal to these documents.

As a result, you have requested the following on behalf of Caddo Parish School Board member, Charlotte Crawley:

1) Whether the Caddo Parish School Board violated the School
Employee Personnel Files Act when the school system
administration distributed copies of documents from the
employee’s personnel files to members of the Caddo Parish
School Board without notice to the employee that his personnel
file was accessed?

Page 2

Opinion No. 05-0338
Rep. Mike Powell
District 6
Page: -2-

2) Whether the Caddo Parish School Board violated the Employee
Personnel Act by maintaining two files on the employee, and
complying with the School Employee Personnel Files Act on only
one file?

3) If the school board did violate the Act :

    a) Is the employee entitled to have the documents expunged and
       removed from the file?
    b) If not, may the school board lawfully refuse his request to submit
       a rebuttal to be placed in his file?
    c) What remedy is the employee entitled to?

The first and second questions can be simplified into asking whether the employee, in this instance, was required to receive notice that his personnel files were accessed. La. R.S. 17:1234 entitled “Requisite signature of school employee on all documents placed in personnel file” provides:

A. Each document concerning a school employee shall be placed in the employee's personnel file within a reasonable time and no document, except those resulting from routine recordkeeping, shall be placed in a school employee's personnel file by any school system employee, unless and until that school employee is presented with the original document and a copy thereof prior to its filing.

B. Upon receipt of the original document and copy of the same, the school employee shall sign the original document as an acknowledgement of the receipt of the copy of the document. Such signature shall not be construed as an agreement to the contents of the document.

The statute clearly implies that the employee shall be given notice of each document placed in his file concerning the employee. This is evident through the mandatory language provided in the statute that the employee shall sign the original document, thus requiring the employee to receive notice of the document placed in his file. To not give such notice violates the purpose of the School Employee Personnel Files Act set out by the legislature in La. R.S. 17:1232 as follows:

(1) To provide for the establishment of procedures for immediate notification to school employees of the filing of any document into their personnel file.

Page 3

Opinion No. 05-0338
Rep. Mike Powell
District 6
Page: -3-

(2) To assure that each school employee has an opportunity to rebut and respond to any document placed into that school employee's personnel file.

(3) To provide the time frame within which to file such a response and/or rebuttal.

(4) To assure that any document from a school employee's personnel file forwarded to another location shall be accompanied by the school employee's response and rebuttal to the document.

Next, this office has addressed the question of whether a school board member could access an employee’s personnel file in La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos. 99-382 and 00-64. It was this office’s opinion that La. R.S. 17:1237 prohibits disclosure to third parties absent the express written consent of the school employee, except by court order or subpoena. The opinions further addressed La. R.S. 17:81, concerning the general powers of a city and parish school board. (A copy of La. Atty. Gen. Op. Nos. 99-382 and 00-64 has been attached for your reference.)

La. R.S. 17:81

K. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule or regulation to the contrary, any city or parish school board member and any other person authorized pursuant to written policy of a city or parish school board shall have the right to examine any or all records of the school system except school employee records relative to evaluations, observations, formal complaints, and grievances.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule or regulation to the contrary, any city or parish school board, upon a majority vote of the authorized board membership, shall have the right to examine any or all records of the school system.

(3) Should an employee's personnel file be accessed by the city or parish school board, the employee whose file was so accessed shall receive written notice of such action, and the individual city or parish school board members shall maintain the confidentiality of any documents in the file so examined.

Consequently, based upon the information given to us by Charlotte Crawley, the documents distributed to the school board fall within the exclusion in § 81(K)(1) because the document referring to the 1976-1978 file was a recommendation by the school principal to not retain the employee. This clearly appears to be an

Page 4

Opinion No. 05-0338
Rep. Mike Powell
District 6
Page: -4-

observation or evaluation of the employee, which would require written notice to the employee. However, § 81(K)(2), indicates that a school board by majority vote shall have the right to examine all records of the school system, but assuming the board acted under this authority, § 81(K)(3) still requires that the employee whose file was accessed receive notice.

In regard to your third question, we turn again to La. R.S. 17:1234 and also to La. R.S. 17:1235. This office stated in La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 01-0469, that documents found in a school employee's personnel file not signed by the employee in accordance with La. R.S. 17:1234 must be removed.

Furthermore, as stated in La. Atty. Gen. Op. No. 01-0469, “La. R.S. 17:1235 allows for a school employee to rebut and to respond to a document placed in his personnel file.”

La. R.S. 17:1235

A. Each school employee shall be given the opportunity to rebut and to respond to a document placed in his personnel file.

B. The rebuttal and response must be in written form and once filed shall be attached to the document to which the response and rebuttal applies, and thus become a permanent part of the school employee's personnel file as long as the document remains a part of the personnel file.

C. No document or copy thereof, to which a response and rebuttal has been filed, shall be used for any purpose whatsoever unless the rebuttal and response or copy thereof is attached to the document or copy sought to be used.

D. A school employee shall have the right to receive proof of any allegations and statements contained in a document placed in his file that the school employee believes to be inaccurate, invalid, or misrepresented. If such proof is not presented, the document containing the allegations and statements shall be removed from the school employee's personnel file and destroyed.

Therefore, under the information provided to this office, the school board’s actions appear to have violated School Employee Personnel Files Act, and as such, the employee is entitled to have the documents removed from his personnel file as set out in La. R.S. 17:1234.

Page 5

Opinion No. 05-0338
Rep. Mike Powell
District 6
Page: -5-

We hope this sufficiently answers your inquiry, however should you have any other questions, please contact our office.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: _________
CHARLES H. BRAUD, JR.
Assistant Attorney General

CCF, Jr./CHB, Jr./sfj

Page 6

SYLLABUS
OPINION NUMBER 05-0338

94 Schools and School Districts - Administration, Government, and Officers

La. R.S. 17:1232-1238
La. R.S. 17:81

School employee shall be given notice of each document placed in his personnel file concerning the employee, otherwise, the employee is entitled to have the documents removed from his personnel file.

The Honorable Mike Powell
State Representative - Dist. 6
333 Texas Street, Suite 717
Shreveport, LA 71101

DATE RECEIVED:

DATE RELEASED: November 7, 2005

Charles H. Braud, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General