R4M

The Florida Supreme Court in Douglas v. Michel, 464 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1985) held there is no state or federal constitutional right of disclosural privacy in hospital personnel records in the context of the public records law. However, medical records have been held to be exempt from disclosure.  See Lewis v. Schreiber, 611 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (salary information subject to inspection); Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid & Assocs., 379 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1980) (resumes subject to inspection); News-Press Publ’g Co. v. Kaune, 511 So. 2d 1023 (Fla.

(This section is blank. See the subpoints below.)

Confidential, other than “salaries and routine directory information.” SDCL § 1-27-1.5 (7).

The Act does not exempt personnel records. See Fincher v. State, 231 Ga. App. 49, 497 S.E.2d 632 (1998) (there is no blanket exclusion exempting personnel records from disclosure); see also Hackworth v. Board of Ed., 214 Ga. App. 17, 447 S.E.2d 78 (1994). However, an individual's Social Security number and insurance or medical information may be redacted from personnel records. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(11.1).

In Montana Human Rights Division v. City of Billings, 199 Mont. 434, 649 P.2d 1283, 1285 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that certain personnel records could be closed, including matters related to family problems, health problems, employee evaluations, military records, IQ test results, prison records, drug and alcohol problems and information "most individuals would not willingly disclose publicly." 649 P.2d at 1287. See also 35 A.G. Op. 27, and 36 A.G. Op. 28.

Open. See T.C.A. §§ 10-7-503(a) and (c)(1). There is an exception for undercover police officers. But this exemption is not to be construed as a general closure of personnel files of all police officers. Henderson v. Chattanooga, 133 S.W.3d 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (allowing access to officers' photographs), But see Contemporary Media v. Giles, 30 Med. L. Rptr. 2149 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2002) (denying access to photos of all newly hired deputy sheriffs).

(This section is blank. See the subpoints below.)

Job application materials for persons who are finalists for employment by public bodies are public. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.05 (Cum. Supp. 2010).

Special disclosure exemptions exist only for the names of applicants for chief executive officer of institutions of higher education and for superintendent of public school districts. § § 552.123-124. Otherwise, the names and resume information about all individuals who apply for employment directly with a governmental body are public. Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-257 (1980); Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-264 (1981); Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-439 (1986). This is true even if the governmental body uses a search committee or a consulting group to find and screen applicants. Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-439 (1986); Tex.

Personnel records are only partially open to the public, as provided in Idaho Code § 9-340C(1). In Federated Publications Inc. v. Boise City, 128 Idaho 459, 915 P.2d 21 (1996) the Idaho Supreme Court held that the term "applicant" in the provision of public records laws exempting from disclosure certain personnel information refers to an applicant for a position as a public employee. The Court noted that the exemption does not apply to applicants for appointment to vacancies in the city council.