March 8, 1995



Ms. Theresa C. Lonergan
27 Algonkin Street
Ticonderoga, NY 12883

The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.

Dear Ms. Lonergan:

I have received your letter of February 6. You asked whether the resumés of public employees must be disclosed.

In this regard, I offer the following comments.

First, as a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (i) of the Law.

Second, from my perspective, the only relevant basis for denial is §87(2)(b), which authorizes an agency to withhold records or portions thereof when disclosure would constitute "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Additionally, §89(2)(b) provides a series of examples of unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, the first of which was cited as the basis for denial. That provision states that an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes:

"disclosure of employment, medical or credit histories or personal references of applicants for employment..."

In my opinion, the provisions cited above might serve to enable an agency to withhold some aspects of a resumé, it is likely that other aspects of a resumé must be disclosed.

While the standard concerning privacy is flexible and may be subject to conflicting interpretations, the courts have provided substantial direction regarding the privacy of public officers employees. It is clear that public officers and employees enjoy a lesser degree of privacy than others, for it has been found in various contexts that public officers and employees are required to be more accountable than others. Further, with regard to records pertaining to public officers and employees, the courts have found that, as a general rule, records that are relevant to the performance of a their official duties are available, for disclosure in such instances would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.g., Farrell v. Village Board of Trustees, 372 NYS 2d 905 (1975); Gannett Co. v. County of Monroe, 59 AD 2d 309 (1977), aff'd 45 NY 2d 954 (1978); Sinicropi v. County of Nassau, 76 AD 2d 838 (1980); Geneva Printing Co. and Donald C. Hadley v. Village of Lyons, Sup. Ct., Wayne Cty., March 25, 1981; Montes v. State, 406 NYS 2d 664 (Court of Claims, 1978); Powhida v. City of Albany, 147 AD 2d 236 (1989); Scaccia v. NYS Division of State Police, 530 NYS 2d 309, 138 AD 2d 50 (1988); Steinmetz v. Board of Education, East Moriches, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., NYLJ, Oct. 30, 1980); Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 NY 2d 562 (1986)]. Conversely, to the extent that records are irrelevant to the performance of one's official duties, it has been found that disclosure would indeed constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.g., Matter of Wool, Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., NYLJ, Nov. 22, 1977].

With respect to access to a resumé or application of a public officer or employee, if, for example, an individual must have certain types of experience, educational accomplishments, licenses or certifications as a condition precedent to serving in a particular position, those aspects of a resume or application would in my view be relevant to the performance of the official duties of not only the individual to whom the record pertains, but also the appointing agency or officers. In a related context, when a civil service examination is given, those who pass are identified in "eligible lists" which have long been available to the public. By reviewing an eligible list, the public can determine whether persons employed by government have passed the appropriate examinations and met whatever qualifications that might serve as conditions precedent to employment. In my view, to the extent that a resumé contains information pertaining to the requirements that must have been met to hold the position, it should be disclosed, for I believe that disclosure of those aspects of a resumé would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Disclosure represents the only means by which the public can be aware of whether the incumbent of the position has met the requisite criteria for serving in that position.

Although some aspects of one's employment history may be withheld, the fact of a person's public employment is a matter of public record, for records identifying public employees, their titles and salaries must be prepared and made available under the Freedom of Information Law [see §87(3)(b)]. However, reference to former private employers could in my opinion be withheld. Further, information included in a document that is irrelevant to criteria required for holding the position, such as grade point average, class rank, home address, social security number and the like, could in my opinion be deleted prior to disclosure of the remainder of the record to protect against an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

I hope that I have been of some assistance.



Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director