Does Arkansas FOIA allow release of a city employee's job application after personal information is redacted?

Plain-English summary

The City of Little Rock received a FOIA request for "all applications for anyone who applied for a position in our Public Works department from June 2019 to present." The custodian decided the applications were personnel records that were releasable after redacting sensitive personal information (date of birth, Social Security number, and similar items). Myia Woods, one of the records subjects, objected and asked AG Leslie Rutledge to review the custodian's decision under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).

The AG concluded the custodian's decision was generally consistent with FOIA. She had not seen the actual records, so she could not opine on document-level details, but she stated that the custodian was correct in determining that the requested job application should be released with certain information redacted. By implication, she also rejected the records subject's bare "I object" as a sufficient ground to withhold the records.

The opinion walked through the standard Arkansas FOIA framework for personnel records:

• A job application sits comfortably within the personnel-records bucket, not the evaluation-records bucket. Personnel records are governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) and the two-step Young v. Rice balancing test.
• Step one of Young: does the document contain personal or intimate information giving rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest?
• Step two: if yes, does that privacy interest outweigh the public's interest in disclosure (with the scale tipped toward disclosure throughout)?
• The records subject bears the burden, and the test is objective. The subject's own subjective view of how invasive disclosure feels is irrelevant.
• A standard list of items must be redacted before any personnel record is released: personal contact information, employee personnel number, marital status and dependents, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical information, undercover-officer identifiers, driver's license details, insurance coverage, tax and withholding information, payroll deductions, and banking information.

The opinion is companion to 2020-022 (issued two days later, also for a Little Rock Public Works job-application FOIA, with a different records subject). 2020-022 incorporated this analysis by reference.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. 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 is a job application a personnel record and not an evaluation record?
Because the AG's longstanding position (and the Arkansas Supreme Court's adoption of it in Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387) is that personnel records cover everything in the file that is not an evaluation or job-performance record. Evaluation records are records "created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee" and "detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job." A submitted job application is neither.

What sensitive information had to be redacted?
The custodian had announced that DOB, SSN, and similar items would be redacted before release. The AG's standard redaction list goes further: personal phone, email, and home address (statutorily required under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13)), employee personnel number, marital status and dependents, medical information, undercover-officer identifiers, driver's license details, insurance coverage, tax and withholding info, payroll deductions, and banking information.

Could Woods have argued anything more substantive than "invasion of privacy"?
Possibly, if she could have shown that specific content of the application gave rise to more than a de minimis privacy interest and outweighed the public's interest in transparency about who applied for Public Works jobs. The opinion does not detail what was on the application, so the privacy weight is hard to assess from outside. But on the AG's framing, a generic objection was not enough.

What is the records subject's burden under Young v. Rice?
The subject has to show that, under the circumstances, his or her privacy interest outweighs the public's interest in disclosure. That is a substantive showing about the document's content, not a personal feeling about disclosure.

Background and statutory framework

The procedural hook for this opinion was Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), which lets the custodian, requester, or subject of certain employee-related records ask the AG to review whether the custodian's release decision is consistent with FOIA. The AG's role is bounded: she opines on overall consistency with FOIA, not on document-specific redactions.

The substantive framework is Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) plus Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992). Personnel records are presumptively releasable except to the extent disclosure would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young supplies the two-step balancing test. The presumption favors disclosure.

Citations

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (Supp. 2019) (definition of public records)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(10) (undercover-officer information)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019) (AG opinion review)

Cases:

• Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)

Companion opinion: AG Op. 2020-022 (incorporates this analysis by reference).

Source

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

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

Opinion No. 2020-021
April 20, 2020

Ms. Myia M. Woods
c/o Sandy Edgar, FOIA Coordinator
City of Little Rock
500 West Markham, Suite 130W
Little Rock, AR 72201-1428

Dear Ms. Woods:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the subject of the requested records, is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019). This subdivision authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related 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 "all applications for anyone who applied for a position in our Public Works department from June 2019 to present." The custodian of records has determined that the requested information is a personnel record that is releasable after redacting all sensitive personal information, such as date of birth or Social Security number. Your correspondence states that you object to the release of this information and ask whether the custodian's release decision is consistent with the FOIA.

Because I have not seen any records that would be responsive to the instant FOIA request, I cannot opine about the releasability of any specific document or the need to redact any specific piece of information from an otherwise releasable document. Accordingly, I can only set out the legal standards the custodian must apply to determine whether certain employee-related records must be disclosed. As explained below, these records can include both "personnel" and "employee evaluation or job performance" records. It is the responsibility of the custodian, in the first instance, to properly classify the responsive records and apply the applicable test for disclosure.

DISCUSSION

[Standard discussion of FOIA general standards, the personnel-records exception under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12), the Young v. Rice balancing test, and the standard list of items that must be redacted from any released personnel record.]

In this instance, it is apparent that the records at issue are properly classified as personnel records. I will, therefore, limit my discussion to records of that type.

III. Application.

Because I have not reviewed the actual records at issue, I am unable to definitively opine on whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. But I can state based on the correspondence sent to my office that the custodian is correct in determining that the requested job application should be released with certain information redacted.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General