Skip to content

6. Other

Posts

  • Alaska

    No additional relevant authorities.

    view more
  • Arkansas

    For a more thorough discussion concerning other types of personnel records, see Part II.A.2(13) of this outline.

    view more
  • California

    Pensions:  The appellate courts have concluded that that exact pension amounts of retired pensioners, like salaries of public employees, are public.  Sacramento County Employees Retirement System v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. App. 4th 440, 472, 125 Cal. Rprt. 3d 655 (2011); Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Ass’n v. Superior Court, 198 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1006, 130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 540 (2011); San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. v. Superior Court, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1228, 1242, 127 Cal. Rptr. 479 (2011).

    Police Personnel Related Records: Disclosure of police officer personnel records are regulated by both California's Evidence Code and Penal Code. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, 832.8 and Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1043-1046; see, e.g., Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1284, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 183, 141 P.3d 288 (2006) (records of a county civil service commission relating to a peace officer’s administrative appeal of a disciplinary matter were exempt under Penal Code Section 832.7, protecting peace officer personnel records); San Diego Police Officers Ass'n v. City of San Diego Civil Service Commission, 104 Cal. App. 4th 275, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248 (2002) (provisions governing peace officer personnel records precluded disclosure of peace officer personnel records at public administrative appeal of disciplinary decision if disclosure objected to by officer); City of Hemet v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1411, 1431, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 532 (1995) (records relating to allegations of police misconduct fell within protections of peace officer personnel records); Fagan v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. App. 4th 607, 618-19, 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 239 (2003) (officers' urinalysis test results taken in connection with an administrative investigation of officer's off-duty conduct fell within protections of peace officer personnel records).

    The Constitutional Sunshine Amendment expressly maintains these privacy protections for peace officers. Cal. Const. Art. I, § 3(b)(3). However, not all police officer information is subject to these provisions or the protections of this subdivision. In Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 661, 165 P.3d 462 (2007), the California Supreme Court made clear that these statutes cannot be interpreted as reaching beyond their clear language and purpose, and cannot be used as a justification for withholding basic information about the state’s law enforcement officers:

    The public’s legitimate interest in the identity and activities of peace officers is even greater than its interest in those of the average public servant.  ‘Law enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority to enforce the laws of the state.  In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its peace officers.’

    42 Cal. 4th at 297 (emphasis added) (quoting New York Times v. Superior Court, 52 Cal. App. 4th 97, 104-105, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 410 (1997)).  Thus, the court held that police officer names, employing agency, and employment dates in a database maintained by the commission was not confidential under Sections 832.7 or 832.8, and disclosure would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Section 6254(c).  Id. at 294, 299-303.  And in International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 319, 343-46, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693, 165 P.3d 488 (2007), the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that individual salary information of police officers was confidential as part of their “personnel records” under Section 832.7.

    Names of police officers involved in shooting incidents while engaged in the performance of their duties also have been held not to be private information under these Penal Code provisions. See Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (“LBPOA”), 59 Cal. 4th 59, 71, 73, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 56, 325 P.3d 460 (2014) (limiting exemption for peace officer personnel records to records “generated in connection with [an officer’s] appraisal or discipline, and holding that “public’s substantial interest in the conduct of its peace officers outweighs, in most cases, the officer’s personal privacy interest”); New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 52 Cal. App. 4th 97, 104, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 410 (1997) ("Fear of possible opprobrium or embarrassment is insufficient to prevent disclosure [of peace officers involved in on-duty shootings].").

    Relying on LBPOA, the court in City of Eureka v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. App. 5th 755, 763-64, 205 Cal. Rptr. 3d 134 (2016), held that video of juvenile’s arrest from a police dashboard camera was not a confidential police personnel record because it was not “generated in connection” with the officer’s appraisal or discipline. Instead, the court said, it was just a “visual record of the minor’s arrest” akin to “information contained in the initial incident report” of an arrest, which is not exempt as a peace officer personnel record. Id. at 764.

    A report compiled by an independent consultant hired to review an officer-involved shooting of an unarmed teenager not for disciplinary purposes but to advance department-wide administrative reforms was held not to be exempt as a peace officer personnel record. See Pasadena Police Officers Assoc. v. Superior Court, 240 Cal. App. 4th 268, 289, 192 Cal. Rprt. 3d 486 (2015). But portions of the report culled from personnel information or officer statements in the course of the administrative investigation contained within the report were held to be exempt. Id. at 290-91 (discussing segregation requirements where exempt information is not inextricably intertwined with non-exemption information).

    view more
  • Connecticut

    Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-213(a)(2) states that FOIA shall be construed to require a public agency to disclose "information in its personnel files, birth records or confidential tax records to the individual who is the subject of the information."

    Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-193 states that an "agency" shall disclose "personal data" relating to an individual to that individual and establishes a procedure if the agency refuses to disclose the information.

    Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-128b and 31-128c permit an employee to inspect his personnel file and his medical file maintained by his employer, and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128f imposes certain limitations upon an employer in disclosing "individually identifiable information" in such files without the written authorization of the employee or in response to other specific circumstances.  In City of Hartford v. FOIC, 201 Conn. 421, 518 A.2d 49 (1986), however, the Supreme Court held that municipal corporations (i.e., public agencies) are not employers within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128f.

    Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-217 prohibits state agencies from disclosing the residential addresses of: certain individuals including federal and state judges and magistrates; local and state police officers; employees of the state department of correction; an attorney who has served as a criminal prosecutor or public defender; inspectors in the Division of Criminal Justice; and employees of the judicial branch.  The statute does not apply to motor vehicle department records. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-217(b).

    Public Act No. 96-133, amending § 19a-17a, exempts from FOIA any document filed with the state department of public health disclosing a medical malpractice award against or settlement with doctors, dentists and psychologists unless the department decides that further investigation or disciplinary action is warranted.

    view more
  • Delaware

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

    view more
  • District of Columbia

    Not specifically addressed.

    view more
  • Georgia

    The Act exempts certain public retirement system information.  O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(33), citing §§ 47-1-14, 47-7-127; § 50-18-72(a)(48), citing § 47-20-87.

    view more
  • Idaho

    Retired employees and retired public officials’ home addresses, home telephone numbers and other financial and nonfinancial membership records are exempt from disclosure.  Idaho Code § 74-106(2).

    view more
  • Indiana

    The job title, business address, business telephone number, job description, education and training background, previous work experience, and the dates of first and last employment of present or former officers or employees of the agency are among the categories of information subject to public access, even if an agency exercises its discretion to deny access to personnel files of public employees or officials. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(8).

    view more
  • Kansas

    Performance records. Personnel records are exempt from disclosure. K.S.A. 45-221(a)(4); Kan. Att’y Gen. Op. 1987-109.

    An individual county commissioner may not examine personnel records which are otherwise not open for public inspection. However, if appropriate actions are taken as a board at an open meeting, an entire board of county commissioners may inspect county personnel records. Kan. Att’y Gen. Op. 1994-121.

    view more
  • Louisiana

    Any Social Security numbers, direct deposit information, medical and insurance related documentation contained in personnel records are exempt. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:11.

    Employee leave records, with possible exception of certain types of sick leave and reasons therefor, are public and not protected by privacy right. Hatfield v. Bush (II), 572 So. 2d 588 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1990), writ denied, 576 So. 2d 49 (La. 1991). There is also no expectation of privacy in an employees' identity, home address or work address. Op. Att'y Gen. 98-26; Local 100 v. Rose, 675 So. 2d 1153 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1996) (note, however, that an employee may specifically request that his or her address remain private. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:11). Business telephone records reflecting calls made by public employees are public records and disclosure does not violate employees' privacy rights. Op. Att'y Gen. 90-159. Per diem payment and travel expense records are public. Op. Att'y Gen. 89-471; Op. Att'y Gen. 91-295. The Attorney General has expressed the opinion that "personally identifiable" personnel records are public records "only if the information is deemed relevant to the functioning of the public body." Op. Att'y Gen. 90-364 and 79-242. It is unclear which records this elastic standard would protect, but Op. Att'y Gen. 79-242 suggests that a school teacher's employment application, transcript of grades, letters of recommendation, performance evaluation, medical records, and complaints about the teacher's conduct would be protected. See Op. Att'y Gen. 99-382 (School Board members can access an employee's personnel file to see if any disciplinary action has been taken against an employee, but cannot access school employee records relative to evaluations, observations, formal complaints, and grievances). Timesheets are a matter of public record. Op. Att'y Gen. 01-117.

    view more
  • Maine

    All other records “received or prepared for use in connection with the transaction of public or governmental business or contains information relating to the transaction of public or governmental business” are a matter of public record unless within a specific statutory exemption. 1 M.R.S.A. § 402(3). The default rule in Maine is that all records maintained by public officers and agencies are available to the public unless specially made exempt by statute.

    view more
  • Maryland

    There is no statutory or case law addressing additional records beyond those already discussed.

    view more
  • Nebraska

    There is no law on point.

    view more
  • New Jersey

    N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10 provides:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of P.L.1963, c. 73 (C.47:1A-1 et seq.) or any other law to the contrary, the personnel or pension records of any individual in the possession of a public agency, including but not limited to records relating to any grievance filed by or against an individual, shall not be considered a government record and shall not be made available for public access, except that:

     

    an individual’s name, title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, date of separation and the reason therefor, and the amount and type of any pension received shall be a government record;

     

    personnel or pension records of any individual shall be accessible when required to be disclosed by another law, when disclosure is essential to the performance of official duties of a person duly authorized by this State or the United States, or when authorized by an individual in interest; and

     

    data contained in information which disclose conformity with specific experiential, educational or medical qualifications required for government employment or for receipt of a public pension, but not including any detailed medical or psychological information, shall be a government record.

    See also, Kovalcik v. Somerset County Prosecutor's Office, 206 N.J. 581 (2011) - Curricula vitae and a list of classes taken by two detectives pertaining to investigation and confession may have been exempt from the Open Public Records Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 47:1A-1 to -13, disclosure requirements as personnel records pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 47:1A-10 if the documents evidenced an employee’s educational background or an employee’s participation in educational pursuits generally. Remand was necessary to determine the contents of the documents and the specific educational requirements for employment as a detective.

    view more
  • New Mexico

    Records contained in personnel files will be publicly available to the extent they do not involve “matters of opinion” or fall under another statutory exception.  See NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1(A)(3).

    view more
  • Ohio

    There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.

    view more
  • Rhode Island

    All pension records for current and retired members of public pension systems are public, with the exception of information regarding the medical condition of any person and the identification of the member’s designated beneficiary.  R.I. Gen. Laws §38-2-2(4)(A)(II)

    view more
  • Tennessee

    Civil service tests are closed. T.C.A. § 8-30

    view more
  • Texas

    Business facsimile numbers of nurses collected and maintained by the board of nursing are public information.  Abbott, 2010 WL 392335 at *6.

    view more
  • Utah

    a. Employment records that contain performance evaluations and personal status information are private if properly classified by the government entity. Utah Code § 63G-2-302(2)(a).

    b. Records other than performance evaluations containing personal recommendations are private if so classified by the government entity and if disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Id. § 63G-2-302(2)(d).

    c. Rules regarding the confidentiality of records pertaining to drug tests are subject to GRAMA. Id. § 67-18-5.

    d. Data within pension records concerning service credits is confidential. Id. § 49-11-618(2).

    e. All information, reports, and test results received by an employer through a drug or alcohol testing program are confidential, and may not be disclosed except in authorized disciplinary or rehabilitative proceedings, or in an authorized action by the employee for libel or slander. Id. § 34-38-13.

    f. “Employing units” are required to keep certain records prescribed by the Department of Workforce Services and to allow the Division of Employment Development to inspect those records. The information contained in the records “may not be published or open to public inspection in a manner revealing the employing unit’s or the individual’s identity.” Id. § 35A-4-312(3). The information shall be disclosed to “a party to an unemployment insurance hearing before an administrative law judge of the department or a review by the Workforce Appeals Board to the extent necessary for the proper presentation of the party’s case”; or “an employer, upon request in writing for information concerning a claim for a benefit with respect to a former employee of the employer.” Id. § 35A-4-312(4)(b).

    g. A grand jury report concerning a public officer’s or employee’s noncriminal misconduct shall be sealed by the managing judge and not be filed as a public record until at least 31 days after a copy of the order is served on the public officer or employee and an answer has been filed, or until the time for filing an answer has expired, an appeal has been taken, or the officer’s or employee’s rights of review have expired. Id. § 77-10a-17(3). The managing judge shall order the report sealed if filing the report as a public record may prejudice fair consideration of a pending criminal matter. Id. § 77-10a-17(6).

    view more
  • Vermont

    (This section is blank.)

    view more
  • West Virginia

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

    view more