Can an Arkansas former employee block release of her personnel file by simply objecting that it is an invasion of privacy?

Plain-English summary

Someone made a FOIA request for the personnel file of Wendy K. Higgins, a former state employee. The records custodian prepared a redacted version, offered Higgins a chance to review it, and was prepared to release. Higgins did not review the redacted file and instead sent a blanket objection: she felt the release was "an unnecessary invasion" of her privacy.

The AG's review under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) is limited. The statute authorizes the custodian, the requester, or the subject of personnel or employee-evaluation records to ask the AG to opine on whether the custodian's release decision is consistent with the FOIA. Here the AG concluded the custodian's decision was consistent with the FOIA because the subject's objection identified no specific documents and offered no specific arguments. A general objection without grounds amounted to a request for reconsideration without reasons, so the AG reaffirmed the original decision to release with redactions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. 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.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas Code § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) creates a specific AG review channel for personnel and employee-evaluation records. The custodian, the requester, or the subject of the record may ask the AG to state whether the custodian's release decision is consistent with the FOIA. The review is narrow: it focuses on the custodian's decision, not on a broader litigation of all FOIA issues.

Here the custodian had already done two things FOIA requires for personnel records: reviewed the file, and prepared a redacted version. Both of those steps presume there is some information that would be exempt from release without redaction, like medical or other personal information protected by statute. The remaining question was whether anything else justified withholding the redacted file.

The AG concluded that a blanket privacy objection, with no specific documents or arguments identified, did not provide a basis to reverse the custodian. The subject did not even review the redacted version, so she could not point to any specific item that should have remained withheld. Without grounds, the objection amounted only to a request for reconsideration, and the AG had no basis to arrive at a different conclusion than the custodian's careful review.

Common questions

Can the subject of a personnel record stop FOIA disclosure?

Not just by saying she objects. The subject has a statutory right under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to ask the AG to review the custodian's decision. To succeed, the objection generally has to identify specific items in the file that should remain redacted or withheld, and articulate why.

What is the AG's role in this review?

Narrow. The AG opines on whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. The AG does not relitigate the whole file from scratch unless presented with concrete arguments.

Should the subject have reviewed the redacted version first?

Yes. Reviewing the redacted version is the way to identify any specific items that should have been redacted but were not. A blanket objection issued without reviewing the file gave the AG nothing to work with.

Were specific exemptions claimed?

No specific exemptions were cited in the objection. The AG noted only the general "invasion of privacy" framing. Arkansas FOIA does include personal-privacy considerations for personnel records, but the burden was on the subject to articulate them in concrete terms.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG review of personnel records release decisions)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2015-145
December 9, 2015
Dear Wendy K. Higgins:
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). This subsection authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of personnel or employee evaluation records to seek an opinion from this office stating whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.

Someone has requested your personnel file from this office. This office prepared a redacted version of your personnel file to disclose to the requester. The file was tendered to you, but you did not seek to review it. Instead, you stated that you "would like to object to my file being released as I feel it is an unnecessary invasion of my privacy."

RESPONSE

My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. In this case, the objection that gave rise to this review is a blanket one that fails to refer to any specific documents or offer any specific objections or arguments. Accordingly, the objection amounts to a request for reconsideration where no grounds have been offered for arriving at a different conclusion. Therefore, because a thorough and careful review of the records has already been conducted and no reasons have been offered to arrive at a different conclusion, I must simply reaffirm the original decision to disclose your personnel file with certain redactions.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General