Judges: WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General
Filed Date: 7/9/1991
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Mr. James Carloss 3313 J.E. Davis Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
Dear Mr. Carloss:
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding a request made for disclosure of information contained in your personnel file maintained by the City of Little Rock, Department of Public Works.1
You state that you consider the release of this information to be an invasion of your privacy and request that the information not be released. You have not stated whether the custodian of the records at the Department of Public Works has made a decision regarding whether particular documents in your personnel file are disclosable or exempt from disclosure. It should be noted that it is the custodian's specific responsibility under the "Arkansas Freedom of Information Act," ("FOIA"), codified at A.C.A. §
Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated §
While no Arkansas court has articulated what constitutes a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," this office has opined that the federal courts can be looked to for guidance in this regard. See, Opinion No.
The following specific information has been exempted through interpretation: personal histories; religious affiliations of employees, Church of Scientology v. Department of Defense,
In contrast, courts have found relatively little privacy interest in records revealing names, date and place of birth, salaries of public employees, training or education background, and work experience. Kruzon v. Department of Health Human Services,
Other records, however, whether or not contained in a personnel file, such as medical, scholastic, adoption or tax information, are exempted by other specific exemptions in the FOIA. See
A.C.A. §
Whether your personnel file contains information that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is an issue that can only be resolved following a review of the actual documents in question. While we are therefore unable to provide a definitive answer to your question, the above referenced cases should offer sufficient guidance in determining the types of data exempt from public disclosure.
It should also be noted that information contained in your personnel file may qualify for exemption as employee evaluation of job performance records. Such information is exempt from public disclosure only until such time that they form the basis for the dismissal or suspension of an employee who has exhausted his administrative appeals and if compelling public interest warrants disclosure. A.C.A. §
On the facts stated, it is impossible to determine whether you have exhausted your administrative remedies or indeed, whether any personnel action has been taken against you. If so, the existence of a compelling public interest must be found prior to the release of "job performance and evaluation" records. Such a determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. The legislative intent of the Freedom of Information Act, however, favors public disclosure. Laman v. McCord,
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Elana L. Cunningham.
Sincerely,
WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General
WB:arb
Commercial Printing Co. v. Rush , 261 Ark. 468 ( 1977 )
Arkansas Highway & Transportation Department v. Hope Brick ... , 294 Ark. 490 ( 1988 )
George M. Kurzon v. Department of Health and Human Services , 649 F.2d 65 ( 1981 )
Columbia Packing Company, Inc. v. United States Department ... , 563 F.2d 495 ( 1977 )
Providence Journal Company v. Federal Bureau of ... , 602 F.2d 1010 ( 1979 )
Laman v. McCord , 245 Ark. 401 ( 1968 )
Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Department of ... , 498 F.2d 73 ( 1974 )
Smith Simpson v. Cyrus R. Vance, Secretary of State , 648 F.2d 10 ( 1980 )
Harry L. Core v. United States Postal Service , 730 F.2d 946 ( 1984 )
United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co. , 102 S. Ct. 1957 ( 1982 )