Can a Little Rock employee block release of her city ID photograph under Arkansas FOIA by objecting?

Plain-English summary

In October 2018, the same multi-employee FOIA request from the City of Little Rock's Housing & Neighborhood Programs department reached Christine W. Bennett. The custodian decided the personnel file was releasable with the standard redactions (no address, date of birth, telephone number, or Social Security information). Bennett objected, focusing specifically on her city ID photograph.

The AG took the same position as in Opinion 2018-125. Records depicting public employees are generally subject to disclosure under the personnel-records test in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12). The objection was not a legally sufficient reason to withhold. The AG enclosed Opinion 2018-125 for the full substantive framework. This opinion is the third short follow-up (along with 2018-126 and 2018-127) addressing different city employees who objected to the same FOIA request.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. 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's FOIA presumes public records are open. The personnel-records exception in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) protects records "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Arkansas Supreme Court's two-step balancing test from Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), governs that determination, and the test is objective. Records depicting public employees, including ID photographs, are generally disclosable.

Section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) lets the custodian, the requester, or the subject of personnel or employee-evaluation records seek an AG opinion. Bennett used that channel as the subject.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. 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

Why are public-employee photos generally disclosable?
Because the public has a recognized interest in knowing who its public employees are, and a face photo associated with someone's public role is not the kind of intimate personal information the personnel-records exception was designed to protect. Under the Young v. Rice test, the privacy interest in a workplace photograph is usually de minimis, so the FOIA's pro-disclosure thumb on the scale wins.

Could a particular fact pattern justify withholding the photo?
Possibly. The opinion does not foreclose case-specific arguments. A documented credible safety threat tied to disclosure of the specific photo could change the analysis under Young v. Rice's second step. No such facts were before the AG here.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exception)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (right to seek AG opinion)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2018-125 (the lead opinion in this cluster, with the full substantive analysis)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2018-128
October 11, 2018
Christine W. Bennett
Housing & Neighborhood Programs
500 West Markham Street, Suite 120W
Little Rock, AR 72201

Dear Ms. Bennett:

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. 2017). 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 City of Little Rock has received a request under the FOIA for your personnel file, including your city identification photograph. The custodian has determined that the requested records are personnel records that are releasable pursuant to the FOIA. The custodian has also determined that "[n]o information like address, date of birth, telephone number or social security information is releasable." You object to the release of your photo ID.

RESPONSE

My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. I addressed the custodian's decision regarding the same FOIA request in Opinion No. 2018-125, which is enclosed for your review. This opinion addresses the same objection you have raised about the release of your photo ID. I concluded that the basis for objecting does not appear to be a legally sufficient reason to withhold the records.

I will not restate the entire analysis, which applies equally to your request for my opinion. But in sum, records depicting public employees are generally subject to disclosure under the test for personnel records. Accordingly, the custodian's decision to release your photograph is likely consistent with the FOIA.

Please see the enclosed Opinion 2018-125 for the entire substantive analysis.

Sincerely,
Leslie Rutledge
Attorney General

Enclosure: Opinion No. 2018-125 (the lead opinion in this cluster; the full enclosure text is preserved on the official record. See the linked landing page for the source filing.)