Personnel

The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's decisions requiring several documents to be released with minimal redactions. They do not constitute personnel information as defined by the Virginia Supreme Court (the first time this case went through the appeals process) because disclosure would not be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy to a reasonable person.

FOIA affirmatively requires that "records of the name, position, job classification, official salary, or rate of pay of, and records of the allowances or reimbursements for expenses paid to, any officer, official, or employee of a public body" be made available to the public. However, while the Virginia personnel information exemption requires the release of "official salary, or rate of pay of, and records of the allowances or reimbursements for expenses paid to, any officer, official, or employee of a public body," it does not explicitly require the release of bonus or overtime pay. Nevertheless, this office generally recommends releasing all information on overtime pay, bonuses, or other compensation. Additionally, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions makes it appear likely that such information might not meet the Hawkins test as information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy were it to be released. For those reasons, this office encourages such disclosures as a matter of best practice even though these disclosures are not explicitly required by statute.

A Chesterfield County Circuit Court ruled that the Chesterfield Police Department can redact names of many of its officers from a spreadsheet of salary information because those officers can be used for undercover operations at any time.
 

Hanover Circuit Court says the names of most officers in the Hanover Sheriff's office can be kept off of a spreadsheet of department salaries because some of those officers might one day work undercover.

Mecklenburg Circuit Court judge orders release of redacted records previously withheld under the personnel records exemption.

Supreme Court of Virginia interprets the personnel exemption and imposes guardrails on governments from applying it broadly.

Mecklenburg County Circuit Court Judge J. William Watson Jr. reviewed seven sets of documents South Hill said were exempt from release as personnel records and concluded that some were and some weren't. In the process, the judge reviewed past cases and FOIA's legislative history to determine that "personnel information" should be defined as "all information necessarily compiled and held by an employer, concerning an identifiable employee, which information directly relates to the commencement, continuation or termination of the employment relationship.”

Although personnel records may be withheld from public disclosure, accounting records that reflect payments made by a public body to a former employee pursuant to a settlement agreement are not exempt. As this office is not a trier of fact, only a court has the authority to resolve factual disputes about specific records.

Harki v. Department of Criminal Justice Services: DCJS must turn over database of training records for law enforcement officers. Judge Joseph A. Migliozzi Jr. agrees that they are personnel records, but notes that the department said it would turn the records over (i.e., exercise their discretion to release records that could be withheld) and then reneged. The opinion also rejects the DCJS argument that it didn't own the database and that it really belonged to the individual law enforcement agencies that supplied the data.

A contract between a public body and a public employee settling an employment dispute may be withheld as a personnel record. However, accounting records that reflect payments pursuant to a settlement agreement are not exempt.