1. Salary

Pervasive Alabama attorney general authority states that lists of public employees and employee salaries are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law. See, e.g., Op. Att’y Gen. Ala. No. 88-00079 (Dec. 16, 1987); 212 Op. Att’y Gen. Ala. 26 (1988); Op. Att’y Gen. Ala. No. 96-00003, 1995 Ala. AG LEXIS 59 (Oct. 4, 1995) (teacher lists); 210 Op. Att’y Gen. Ala. 20 (1988) (county employee lists); 171 Op. Att’y Gen. Ala. 14 (1978) (employee list of a mental health board); Op. Att'y Gen. Ala. No. 2006-076, 2006 Ala. AG LEXIS 39 (Mar. 27, 2006) (salary of Water and Sewer Board Members); Att'y Gen. Ala. No. 2007-067, 2007 Ala. AG LEXIS 40 (Apr. 3, 2007) (contract terms of state university athletic coaches); Op. Att'y Gen. Ala. No. 2008-004, 200 Ala. AG LEXIS 118 (Oct. 2, 2007) (Health Care Authority executive salaries).

W-2 forms are closed. Blankenship v. City of Hoover, 590 So. 2d 245, 250 (Ala. 1991).

In International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1264 v. Municipality of Anchorage and Anchorage Daily News, 973 P.2d 1132 (Alaska 1999), the Alaska Supreme Court found that public employment salary information is not information of a personal nature and its disclosure is justified by the public interest. The union argued that municipal employees have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their names and salaries because that information is contained in their personnel files, and is intimate and sensitive information that reveals their financial status. The court said that even if salary information is included in employees’ personnel records, it is not sensitive or personal, and that in addition, as public employees, they have a reduced expectation of privacy in their salaries, which are clearly of legitimate public concern. Because disclosure of their names and salaries does not violate their constitutional right to privacy, it also would not violate a municipal ordinance that allows disclosure that would not constitute an "unwarranted invasion of privacy," like AMC 3.90.040(B).  It rejected the argument that disclosure of salary information, including disclosure of employees’ names in conjunction with their salaries, violated employees’ constitutional or statutory rights to privacy, and held specifically that municipal employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their names and salaries. In Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Rue, 948 P.2d 976, 980 (Alaska 1997), the Supreme Court had noted that allowing access to "compensation authorized" for an employees "tells little about the individual's personal life, but instead simply describes employment status." It also noted that “courts in other states have found that payroll records, vacation, and sick leave attendance records are disclosable because they are not ‘private facts of a personal nature.’" Id.

An Arizona court has recognized that payroll records of public employees are public records.  See Phoenix New Times, 217 Ariz. at 544, 177 P.3d at 286.

Information concerning a public employee’s salary is not exempt from disclosure. See, e.g., Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. Nos. 2006-154, 2005-051, 2003-298, 2002-087. Public employees’ salary history, including the dates upon which salary increases were effective are also subject to disclosures. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 96-205. Documents detailing the reasons for a salary adjustment might be exempt from the FOIA if they could be considered evaluation or job performance records. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2002-159.

Public. See Int’l Fed’n of Prof’l and Technical Eng’rs v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693, 165 P.3d 488 (2007); see also Cal. Gov't Code § 7928.400 (public employment contracts between a state or a local agency and any public official or public employee is a public record).

Open. Expressly excluded from the "personnel files" exemption are "employment agreements [and] any amount paid or benefit provided incident to termination of employment." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-202(4.5).

There are no provisions regarding salary records in general. Thus, these should be treated as any other record under FOIA and presumed open unless a record comes within a specific exemption -- for example, if disclosure of the record in question would constitute an “invasion of privacy” under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-210(b)(2). See Records Outline at II.A.2.b.

Public employees’ salaries are public records. Del. Op. Att’y Gen., No. 12-iib10 (July 27, 2012); Del. Op. Att’y Gen., No. 06-ib14 (July 12, 2006); Del. Op. Att’y Gen., No. 95-IB13 (Mar. 20, 1995)

Under the Act, payroll information for University employees is not a public record where such salaries are paid through non-public funds. Del. Op. Att’y Gen., No. 07-ib12 (May 10, 2007).

The salaries of employees and officers of public bodies are public information under D.C. Code § 2-536.

In Florida Power & Light Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission, certain compensation information of Florida Power & Light employees was deemed confidential and exempt from public disclosure in connection with ratemaking proceedings pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 119.07(1) and 366.093(2). 31 So. 3d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Salary information is subject to the Act’s disclosure requirements.

With respect to compensation of agency employees, the UIPA requires disclosure of only the salary range for certain employees. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-12(a)(14). OIP has concluded that disclosure of the exact salaries of identifiable agency employees would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13(1). See Law School Accreditation Reports, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 91-15 (Sept. 10, 1991); Information About Police Officers, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 91-26 (Dec. 13, 1991); University of Hawaii Coaches Contracts, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 91-31 (Dec. 30, 1991); Salaries of Mayor’s Exempt Employees Public, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 93-10 (Sept. 2, 1993); State Enforcement Plan Public, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 93-19 (Oct. 21, 1993).

The gross salary and salary history of all current or former public officials contained within their personnel record is specifically made open under Idaho Code § 74-106(1).

Open. See 5 ILCS 140/2.10; see also Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396, 415, 910 N.E.2d 85, 97 (2009) (superintendent’s employment contract was not exempt under personnel file exemption).

Salary information is subject to public access. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(8) (excepting compensation from the provision giving agencies discretion to deny access to personnel files).

Salary information is generally a public record.

K.S.A. 45-221(a)(4) states:

“Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public agency shall not be required to disclose . . .

Personnel records, performance ratings or individually identifiable records pertaining to employees or applicants for employment, except that this exemption shall not apply to the names, positions, salaries or actual compensation employment contracts or employment-related contracts or agreements and lengths of service of officers and employees of public agencies once they are employed as such.”

See also Kan. Att’y Gen. Ops. 1987-109; 1994-121(personnel records are exempt from disclosure).  “Salary” includes records of payments made to employees for vacation or sick leave; “salary” does not include unpaid accrued vacation and sick leave.  Kan. Att’y Gen. Ops. 10-3; 2000-08.  See also Kan. Att’y Gen. Op. 92-132 (pension plan part of salaries); Kan. Att’y Gen. Op. 91-50 (salary deduction not open); Kan. Att’y Gen. Op. 88-61 (names of employees of public agencies and salaries must be disclosed upon request).

Regarding settlement and severance agreements between public employees and public employers, Attorney General Opinion No. 93-55 includes a finding that a so-called “confidential” settlement agreement involving a public agency “would be considered as invalid against public policies expressed in the KORA.”  There, a city attorney sought to rely on K.S.A. 45-221(a)(30) as a basis to refuse to disclose a settlement agreement, citing the privacy of the individuals involved.  In rejecting the city’s position, the Attorney General noted that federal courts, upon review of a similar privacy provision in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), “have held that embarrassment alone does not suffice to justify nondisclosure, Simms v. CIA, 642 F.2d 562 (D.C. 1980), and recognized that if the invasion of privacy is insubstantial, a superior public interest in disclosure prevails, Campbell v. U.S. Civil Services Commission, 539 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1976). Attorney General Opinion No. 91-50.” Kan. Att’y Gen. Op. 93-55.

Attorney General Opinion No. 93-55 goes on to set forth the following rule to govern when a settlement agreement may contain a confidentiality clause: “application of the personal privacy exemption of the KORA depends on the nature of the terms of the settlement agreement. Only when disclosure clearly invades personal privacy of the party involved in the agreement, may it possibly be closed under this exemption.” Id.

That rule was applied in March of 2021 in a lawsuit brought by the Kansas City Star against a Kansas City suburb.  See Petition, McClatchy et al. v. Overland Park.  There, the Johnson County District Court “ruled that Overland Park must turn over its severance agreement with the police officer who shot and killed 17-year-old John Albers as he was backing out of his driveway in 2018.  The city had denied The Star’s request for the agreement under the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA), arguing it is not an ‘employment-related agreement’ subject to disclosure under the law.”  Dan Margolies, Court Orders Overland Park To Hand Over Records In Police Killing Of Teenager, KCUR, March 18, 2021.

The salaries of public employees are open. 10-ORD-226 (“In a line of open records opinions/decisions dating from the earliest days of the Act, this office recognized that "[a]mounts paid from public coffers are perhaps uniquely of public concern . . . . [T]he public is entitled to inspect records documenting exact amounts paid from public monies to include amounts paid for . . . salaries, etc.”) (internal citations omitted).

Information concerning gross income is subject to discovery, as is information regarding expenses incurred by an employee and amounts reimbursed for those expenses. Op. Att'y Gen. 93-445(A). The Attorney General has issued an opinion, however, indicating that constitutional privacy interests prevent disclosure of information regarding tax exemptions, taxable wages, federal tax, FICA wages, FICA tax, Medicare wages, Medicare tax, state tax, and deferred compensation. Id. The First Circuit held that employees had an expectation of privacy in their payroll information that detailed hourly wages, hours worked, deductions and net paycheck amount. Angelo Iafrat Constr., L.L.C. v. State, 879 So.2d 250 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004); Op. Att'y Gen. 01-0226 (names and gross salaries of municipal employees are generally subject to release as public records).

A public employee’s salary is a matter of public record.

A "public record" includes a document that lists the salary of an employee of a unit or instrumentality of the state government or of a political subdivision.  § 4-101(j)(2); Moberly v. Herboldsheimer, 276 Md. 211, 345 A.2d 855 (1975), University System of Maryland, et al. v. The Baltimore Sun Company, 381 Md. 79, 100, 847 A.2d 427, 439 (2004) (finding that an employment contract of a public employee evidencing how a publicly funded salary is earned qualified as a public record).

Names, base salaries, and overtime pay of police officers are not “personnel” information, nor are they intimate details of a highly personal nature. Therefore, they do not fall under the privacy exemption, and they must be disclosed. Hastings & Sons Pub. Co. v. City Treasurer of Lynn, 374 Mass. 812, 814-15, 375 N.E.2d 299 (1978).

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that employees’ names and salary information were not “intimate details” of a highly “personal nature” and even if the disclosure was an invasion of privacy, the invasion was not “clearly unwarranted.” Penokie v. Mich. Tech. Univ., 93 Mich. App. 650, 287 N.W.2d 304 (1979). But see People v. Carlin, 225 Mich. App. 480, 491, 571 N.W.2d 742, 748 (1997) (tally sheets and comp-time slips and tally sheets accompanying payroll information that were regulated deleted “were merely notes or internal memoranda”) rev’d on other grounds by People v. Coutu, 459 Mich. 348, 589 N.W.2d 458 (1999).

Information regarding gross salary, salary range, contract fees, actual gross pension, fringe benefits and other remuneration paid to current and former public employees, volunteers and independent contractors is considered public data. Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2.

Gross salary is public but not net salary and tax status are not. Att’y Gen. No. 93-900, March 23, 1994 to Stringer.

The salary of a public employee is an open record. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.021(13). The term “salary” has been held to include pension benefits, Pulitzer Publishing Co. v. Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System, 927 S.W.2d 477 (Mo.Ct.App. 1996), and severance pay. Librach v. Cooper, 778 S.W.2d 351 (Mo.Ct.App. 1989). Additionally, accrued pay records are “salary” according to Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.021(14) when the accrued time is made payable to the employee from state treasury funds or “public coffers.”  State ex rel. Daly v. Info. Tech. Servs. Agency of City of St. Louis, 417 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Salaries and names of public employees are not “intimate details” of a “highly personal” nature. Disclosure of this information would not thwart the apparent purpose of the exemption to protect against the highly offensive public scrutiny of private personal details. The precise expenditure of public funds is simply not a private fact. See 38 Mont. A.G. Op. 109 (1980), citing Penokie v. Michigan Technological University, 93 Mich. App. 650, 287 N.W.2d 304 (1980). The Penokie court went on to say that even if the information did infringe on a public employee’s expectation of personal privacy, it would have to be disclosed because “the minor invasion occasioned by disclosure of information which a university employee might hitherto have considered is outweighed by the public’s right to know precisely how its tax dollars are spent.” 38 Mont. A.G. Op. 109 (1980), citing Penokie v. Michigan Technological University, 93 Mich. App. 650, 287 N.W.2d 304 (1980).

Salaries of public employees are public record.  Neb. Rev. Stat. §84-712.05(7).

Presumably open

Public.  See Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire v. Local Government Center, 159 N.H. 699 (2010); Mans v. Lebanon Sch. Bd., 112 N.H. 160 (1972)(teachers).

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(e) provides that “Immediate access ordinarily shall be granted to budgets, bills, vouchers, contracts, including collective negotiations agreements and individual employment contracts, and public employee salary and overtime information.”

Public information.

Each agency shall maintain a record setting forth the name, public office address, title and salary of every officer or employee of the agency. N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 87(3)(b) (McKinney 1988). Doolan v. BOCES, 48 N.Y.2d 341, 398 N.E.2d 533, 422 N.Y.S.2d 927 (1979) (granting access to regional salary and fringe benefit data compiled for member school districts as part of subscription service); Buffalo News v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, 163 A.D.2d 830, 558 N.Y.S.2d 364 (4th Dep’t 1990) (granting access to housing authority payroll records); Hopkins v. City of Buffalo, 107 A.D.2d 1028, 486 N.Y.S.2d 514 (4th Dep’t. 1985) (granting access to payroll records of several public work projects); Gannett Co. v. Cty. of Monroe, 59 A.D.2d 309, 399 N.Y.S.2d 534 (4th Dep’t 1977), aff’d, 45 N.Y.2d 954, 383 N.E.2d 1151, 411 N.Y.S.2d 557 (1978) (granting access to salary levels of terminated county employees); Day v. Town Board of Milton, No. 4Q-14 (Sup. Ct., Saratoga Cty., April 27, 1992) (granting access to redacted W-2 form); Young v. Smith, No. 86-0307 (Sup. Ct., Essex Cty., Jan. 9, 1987) (granting access to vouchers approved by the village board of trustees for payment of village attorney); Minerva v. Village of Valley Stream, No, 7566/81 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., May 20, 1981) (granting access to front of village attorney’s paycheck, but denying request to examine and copy the back of the check on the basis of privacy exemption); Hopkins v. Hennessy, (Sup. Ct., Erie Cty., Dec. 23, 1980) (granting access to payroll records of the employees of a government contractor but denying access to union dues and Social Security numbers to prevent unwarranted invasion of personal privacy); In re Wool, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 22, 1977 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., 1977) (denying access to union dues check-off information within payroll record under privacy exemption).

Although the Board of Education is not required to release home addresses of employees, it has authority to release this information. Buffalo Teachers Federation Inc. v. Buffalo Board of Ed., 156 A.D.2d 1027, 549 N.Y.S.2d 541 (4th Dep’t 1989).

Public.

Generally open.

Salary rate and gross salary of public employees are public records. State ex rel. Petty v. Wurst, 49 Ohio App.3d 59, 550 N.E.2d 214 (Ohio App. 12th Dist. 1989).

A record reflecting the gross salary of public employees is a public record. 51 O.S. § 24A.7(B)(2).

The gross pay of public employees is not exempt under ORS 192.355(2) (formerly ORS 192.502(2)). Attorney General’s Manual, § I.G.b.2.d.

Salary information of a public employee or agency official is presumptively accessible. 65 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 67.708(b)(6)(ii).

An employee’s gross salary is one of the specific items of personnel information that is public under R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)(I).

The Act addresses compensation and not salary alone.  Full disclosure of compensation is required for some categories of employees and disclosure within specified ranges is required for others.  S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(6).

Open, generally. SDCL §1-27-1.5(7). More specifically, counties, municipalities and school boards publish salaries. SDCL §6-1-10.

Open.

Salary and bonus records information, when public information, are discoverable under the TPIA. The Baytown Sun v. City of Mont Belvieu, 145 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 Dist.] 2004, reh’g overruled) (because the City was entitled to “inspect the books and records” employee salary information constituted public information under the TPIA); Houston Mun. Employees Pension System v. Abbott, 192 S.W.3d 862, 866 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied) (The Pension Statute specifically states that records in the custody of the pension system about its members are not subject to the TPIA).

Records containing the gross compensation of a government entity’s former and present employees and officers are public, excluding “(i) undercover law enforcement personnel, and (ii) investigative personnel if disclosure could reasonably be expected to impair the effectiveness of investigations or endanger any individual’s safety.” Utah Code § 63G-2-301(2)(b).

“Individual salaries and benefits of and salary schedules relating to elected or appointed officials and employees of public agencies shall not be exempt from public inspection and copying.”  1 V.S.A. § 317(b).

Official salary or rates of pay of all employees receiving in excess of $10,000 annually are open to the public.  Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3705.1.1.

Public employee salary information is generally subject to disclosure, although individual employee deductions may be protected by a right to privacy. 1973 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 4. Employee identification numbers are exempt, but names must be released. See Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wn. App. 357, 951 P.2d 357 (1998).

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

Public employee salaries generally are available for public inspection.

The salary, along with any other documents containing the terms and conditions of employment, are open to public inspection.