What records about part-time city employees can be released under Arkansas FOIA, including applications, contracts, and payroll records?

Plain-English summary

The City of Little Rock got a broader FOIA request than the salary-data requests other cities received that month. The requester wanted "all records regarding part time city employees for 2019 and 2020," specifically including applications or contracts for employment, payroll records, memoranda, facsimiles, emails, and attachments. The custodian decided the records were personnel and evaluation records, releasable subject to standard redactions. Two part-time employees, Trinitee Wilkins and Ky'Leah Pruitt, asked the AG whether release was consistent with FOIA.

The AG provided general guidance rather than a record-by-record review. The headline rules:

Applications, contracts, and payroll records. Likely personnel records. Releasable under the Young v. Rice balancing test, subject to redaction of sensitive personal information.

Payroll redactions specifically. Beyond the standard list (address, DOB, phone, SSN), the AG flagged that tax withholdings, payroll deductions, and personal finance details must be redacted from payroll records.

Memoranda, emails, and attachments. These require individual classification. Some may be personnel records, some may be non-exempt public records, some may be evaluation records depending on content. The custodian has to walk through each one.

Evaluation records. Released only when all four prongs are met (suspension/termination, finality, basis, compelling interest). The custodian was right that none would be released absent that showing.

What this means for you

Part-time public employees

Even part-time work for a public agency is on the record. Your application, contract, salary, and basic compensation information are public records subject to release. Sensitive personal information (home address, DOB, SSN, banking, tax) gets redacted.

FOIA custodians

For broad requests, classify each record category individually rather than applying one rule to the entire batch. Applications/contracts/payroll get the personnel-record treatment. Emails and memoranda need fact-specific analysis: is this a public record at all (does it concern official functions)? If yes, what category? Apply the right test for each category.

For payroll specifically, the AG's standard redaction list extends beyond the basics. Tax withholdings, payroll deductions, and any personal finance information must be redacted. Don't release pay stubs verbatim; release with redactions.

Citizens and journalists

You can request the full set of records about part-time public employees. Don't accept a blanket denial. Push for individual classification where the custodian has bundled different record types.

Common questions

Are part-time employees treated the same as full-time?

Yes, as far as FOIA is concerned. The status of the employment is the relevant question (public vs. private), not the hours.

What about my pay stub?

Your name, salary, hire date, and position title are releasable. Tax withholdings, payroll deductions, and bank routing information are redacted. The custodian should release a redacted version, not refuse the whole record.

Are emails categorically exempt?

No. Whether an email is a public record at all turns on whether it "constitute[s] a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions" (Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette). The custodian decides email by email. Emails about official functions are subject to the same personnel/evaluation/non-exempt analysis as any other record.

What if the request is huge?

A voluminous request is not a basis for denial. The custodian can take longer and notify the requester within three working days that the search will be lengthy with a target completion date.

Background and statutory framework

Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12) are exempt only when release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice supplies the balancing test. The AG has consistently held that employment applications, contracts, and payroll records are personnel records subject to release with required redactions (Op. 2017-023, Op. 2010-152).

For payroll records specifically, the redaction list extends to tax withholdings (Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385), payroll deductions (Op. 98-126), and personal finance details (Op. 2021-026, Op. 2005-194).

Evaluation records under § 25-19-105(c)(1) require all four prongs: suspension/termination, finality, basis, compelling interest. The custodian was correct to apply that test.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (required redactions)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion procedure)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (definition of public records)
• Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435 (2007)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306 (1998)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2021-049
June 29, 2021
Ms. Trinitee Wilkins
Ms. Ky'Leah Pruitt
c/o FOIA Coordinator
City of Little Rock
500 W. Markham, Suite 130W
Little Rock, AR 72201-1428

Dear Mses. Wilkins and Pruitt:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your requests, which are made as the subjects of the requested records, are 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 ("the City") has received a request under the FOIA for "all records regarding part time city employees for 2019 and 2020, that includes but is not limited to applications or contracts for employment; payroll records; memorandum, facsimiles, emails and attachments." The records custodian has notified you of the request and of the City's determination that "this information is part of your personnel and employee evaluation or job performance records, and is releasable pursuant to the [FOIA]." The custodian has also stated, "No sensitive or personal identifying information, such as address, date of birth, telephone number, or social security information is releasable," and that "[e]valuation records are not releasable, unless they form the basis of a suspension or termination, and then only if a disciplinary matter has reached its final administrative resolution." You seek my opinion regarding the custodian's decision.

RESPONSE

My duty under subsection 25-19-105(c)(3)(B) is to state whether the custodian's decision as to the release of "personnel or evaluation records" is consistent with the FOIA. Because I have not seen any records the City has determined to 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. I can state generally, however, that at least some of the information requested (applications for employment, contracts for employment, and payroll records) is subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA once any appropriate redactions have been made. Additionally, the custodian has correctly determined that sensitive personal information is not releasable.

DISCUSSION

When dealing with employee-related records, custodians must make two determinations in the first instance: (1) whether the records meet the definition of the kind of employment records discussed above; and (2) if so, whether under the specific circumstances, the FOIA requires the employment records be released based on the applicable test for disclosure.

The custodian has determined that the requested information "is part of your personnel and employee evaluation or job performance records" and that it "is releasable pursuant to the [FOIA]." However, I have no information regarding the custodian's classification of any particular record. Properly classifying a record is critical so that the appropriate test for disclosure can be applied.

While I cannot opine on the release of any specific records here, I can state generally that at least some of the requested records (employment applications, employment contracts, and payroll records) likely constitute personnel records and are subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA after appropriate redactions have been made. Particularly with respect to payroll records, the custodian must ensure that information regarding an employee's tax withholdings, payroll deductions, and personal finances has been redacted.

For the remaining requested records, including memoranda, facsimiles, emails, and attachments, the custodian must make a determination as to the classification of those records and apply the appropriate test for disclosure.

The custodian has determined that any sensitive personal information, such as your home address, date of birth, telephone number, or Social Security number, must be redacted from any disclosable personnel records. That decision is, in my opinion, consistent with the FOIA. Furthermore, the custodian has stated that any employee-evaluation records would not be disclosed "unless they form the basis of a suspension or termination, and then only if a disciplinary matter has reached its final administrative resolution." As long as the other two prongs of the test set out above are met, that decision is also consistent with the FOIA.

A FOIA requester's identity or motive for making the request is generally irrelevant to whether a record must be released. The test under the FOIA for the release of personnel records asks whether, as an objective matter, the records in question shed light on the workings of government for the general public.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General