Can a Little Rock School District employee block release of her job application and contract under FOIA?

Plain-English summary

The Little Rock School District received a FOIA request for the redacted job application and employment contract of LRSD employee Shirley Goodnight. The custodian planned to release the records after redacting personal contact information (Social Security numbers, home addresses, personal phone numbers, personal email addresses). Goodnight asked the AG whether the disclosure was proper.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said yes. Job applications and employment contracts of public school employees are personnel records subject to FOIA disclosure. The standard redactions for personal contact information and college transcripts (which often appear in application files) made the planned release consistent with the FOIA.

This opinion is one of three nearly identical AG reviews issued the same week for LRSD employees (Op. 2017-023 for Sonya Kindall, this opinion 2017-024 for Shirley Goodnight, and Op. 2017-025 for John Kuykendall). All three reach the same conclusion using the same framework.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. 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

Q: Why are three nearly identical opinions issued the same week?
A: When a FOIA request covers multiple employees' personnel records, each employee can independently ask the AG to review the custodian's release decision under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). Each request gets its own opinion. The substance is the same, but the AG generates a separate document for each request.

Q: Is the privacy interest of public school employees lower than other public employees?
A: No. Arkansas FOIA applies the same personnel-records framework to all public employees. Where an opinion mentions "school district employee" specifically, that is just the factual context, not a different legal standard.

Q: What if a job applicant put unusual private information in their application (e.g., medical history)?
A: The AG opinions provide a list of standard redactions, but additional redactions might be appropriate where the document contains unusual content. Medical information is on the standard redaction list. Other unusual disclosures would be evaluated under the Young v. Rice balancing test.

Q: Does the requester have to give a reason for wanting the records?
A: No. Arkansas FOIA does not require requesters to state a reason. Whether a record is disclosable depends on the record, not the requester. So the same redaction set applies regardless of who asked.

Background and statutory framework

The 2017-023, 2017-024, and 2017-025 cluster shows how FOIA-review opinions work in practice. A blanket FOIA request to a public agency triggers review by the custodian. Where the custodian wants to release records over an employee's objection, the employee can seek AG review. The AG applies the same framework to each opinion, and the result is essentially copy-paste. That makes the opinions easy to write but reveals the underlying uniformity of the doctrine.

This opinion is most useful as a representative example of routine FOIA-review practice in Arkansas.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12), (b)(13)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-023 (parallel opinion same week)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-025 (parallel opinion same week)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2017-024
February 28, 2017
Shirley Goodnight
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
c/o Rhonda L. Benton, SPHR, SHRM-SCP, CLRP
Director of Human Resources
Little Rock School District
810 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Ms. Goodnight:
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)
(Supp. 2015). 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.
Your correspondence indicates that the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") has
received a FOIA request for, among other things, a redacted copy of your job
application and employment contract. The records custodian has determined that
"your job applica[tion] and current contract should be disclosed" after redacting
"all personal contact information, including but not limited to: [S]ocial [S]ecurity
number, home addresses, personal telephone numbers and personal email
addresses, as required by law." You ask whether the custodian's decision to
release these records is consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the
FOIA. I have not been provided with copies of the requested records, and thus
cannot conclusively opine regarding the release of any particular records. I can
323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 · LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 · FAX (501) 682-8084
ARKANSASAG.GOV Shirley Goodnight
Opinion No. 2017-024
Page2
state generally, however, that the job applications and employment contracts of
public employees are "personnel records" for purposes of the FOIA and subject to
public disclosure, provided that certain personal contact information must be
redacted prior to release.
DISCUSSION
I. General standards governing disclosure.
A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if all three of the
following elements are met. First, the FOIA request must be directed to an entity
subject to the act. Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.
Third, no exceptions allow the document to be withheld.
The first two elements appear met in this case. As for the first element, the
documents are held by the LRSD, which is a public entity. As for the second
element, the FOIA defines "public record" as:
[W]ritings, 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 which constitute a record of the
performance or lack of performance of official functions which are
or should be carried out by a public official or employee, a
governmental agency, or any other agency wholly or partially
supported by public funds or expending public funds. All records
maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope
of their employment shall be presumed to be public records. 1
I believe job applications and employment contracts kept by the LRSD clearly
qualify as "public records" under this definition.2 Therefore, in my opinion, these
documents are public records and must be disclosed unless some specific
exception provides otherwise.
1 Ark. Code Ann.§ 25-19-103(7)(A) (Supp. 2015).
2 See Ops. Att'y Gen. 2015-130 at n.2 (citing Op. Att'y Gen. 87-070, which found that applications are "a
record of the performance of public officials charged with the responsibility ofreviewing those applications
and deciding on the most qualified candidate"; and 93-337 at pg. 1 (stating that "contracts of public school
employees are clearly 'public records' within the meaning of the FOIA."). Shirley Goodnight
Opinion No. 2017-024
Page 3
II. Exceptions to disclosure.
Under certain conditions, the FOIA exempts two groups of items normally found
in employees' personnel files.3 For purposes of the FOIA, these items can usually
be divided into two mutually exclusive ~roups: "personnel records"4 or "employee
evaluation or job performance records."
When custodians assess whether either of these exceptions applies to a particular
record, they must make two determinations. First, they must determine whether
the record meets the definition of either exception. Second, assuming the record
does meet one of the definitions, the custodian must apply the appropriate test to
determine whether the FOIA requires that record be disclosed.
In my opinion, the exemption that is primarily relevant in addressing the requested
records at issue is the "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" exemption
found in the FOIA at Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (Supp. 2015). This
provision exempts from public disclosure "[personnel records to the extent that
disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Also relevant to the request is Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-501(b)(13) (Supp. 2015)
(exemption for "personal contact information ... contained in employer records").
3 This office and the leading commentators on the FOJA have observed that personnel files
usually include: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents such as
information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health and life
insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records;
requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal
documents such as subpoenas. E.g. Op. Att'y Gen. 97-368; John J. Watkins & Richard J. Peltz,
THE ARKANSAS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 187-89 (Arkansas Law Press, 5th ed., 2009).
4 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-lOS(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."
5 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-lOS(c)(l): "Notwithstanding subdivision (b)(12) of this section, all
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." Shirley Goodnight
Opinion No. 2017-024
Page 4
a. Personnel-records exception.
The FOIA does not define the exception for "personnel records." But this office
has consistently opined that "personnel records" are all records other than
employee evaluation and job performance records that pertain to individual
employees.6 Whether a particular record meets this definition is, of course, a
question of fact that can only be definitively determined by reviewing the record
itself. If a document meets this definition, then it is open to public inspection and
copying except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."7
While the FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy," the Arkansas Supreme Court, in Young v. Rice,8 has provided
some guidance. To determine whether the release of a personnel record would
constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," the Court applies
a balancing test that weighs the public's interest in accessing the records against
the individual's interest in keeping them private. The balancing takes place with a
thumb on the scale favoring disclosure. 9
The balancing test elaborated by Young v. Rice has two steps. 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 de minimis
privacy interest.10 If the privacy interest is merely de minimis, then the thumb on
the scale favoring disclosure outweighs the privacy interest. Second, if the
information does give rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest, then the
custodian must determine whether that interest is outweighed by the public's
interest in disclosure. I I Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the
person resisting disclosure bears the burden of showing that, under the
circumstances, his privacy interests outweigh the public's interests.12 The fact that
6 See, e.g., Op. Att'y Gen. 1999-147; Watkins & Peltz at 187.
7 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (Supp. 2015).
8 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
9 Watkins & Peltz, supra note 3, at 191.
10 Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
11 Id., 826 S.W.2d at 255.
12 Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998). Shirley Goodnight
Opinion No. 2017-024
Page 5
the subject of any such records may consider release of the records an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is
objective. 13
Whether any particular personnel record's release would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is always a question of fact.14
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it
may contain discrete pieces of information that have to be redacted. Some items
that must be redacted include:
• Personal contact information of public employees, including personal
telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, and home addresses (Ark.
Code Ann.§ 25-19-105(b)(13));
• Marital status of employees and information about dependents (Op. Att'y
Gen. 2001-080;
• Dates of birth of public employees (Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-064);
• Social Security numbers (Ops. Att'y Gen. 2006-035, 2003-153);
• Medical information (Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-153);
• Any information identifying certain law enforcement officers currently
working undercover (Ark. Code Ann.§ 25-19-105(b)(10));
• Driver's license numbers (Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-025);
• Insurance coverage (Op. Att'y Gen. 2004-167);
• Tax information or withholding (Ops. Att'y Gen. 2005-194, 2003-385); and
• Payroll deductions (Op. Att'y Gen. 98-126);
• Banking information (Op. Att'y Gen. 2005-194).
13 E.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198.
14 Ops. Att'y Gen. 2006-176, 2004-260, 2003-336, 98-001. Shirley Goodnight
Opinion No. 2017-024
Page 6
III. Application.
Whether any particular personnel record's release would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is always a question of fact.15 This
office has previously opined, however, that the type of information contained in
teacher contracts and job applications rarely rises to the level of an "unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.16 Nonetheless, certain information may need to be
redacted from the requested records. Among the categories of exempt information
to be deleted are Social Security numbers, medical information, school transcripts,
and personal contact information.17
In conclusion, although I have not seen the requested records and therefore cannot
opine specifically about their release, I can state generally that the custodian's
decision to release these types of records-after redacting personal contact
information and college transcripts-is consistent with the FOIA.
Sincerely,
~-"'· /~7
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
15 Ops. Att'y Gen. 2016-025, 2006-176, 2004-260, 2003-336, and 98-001.
16 See Ops. Att'y Gen. 2016-025, 2010-070, 2009-032, 2003-385 and 88-147.
17 Id. (and opinions and Arkansas Code sections cited therein).