Second Circuit Expands FOIA Exemption 6 to Withhold Duty-Station Information of Federal Employees

Introduction

The case of Susan B. Long and David Burnham v. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) addressed the extent to which the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption 6 can be applied to protect not only the names but also the duty-station information of federal employees. Long and Burnham, both professors at Syracuse University and co-directors of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), sought access to OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), which contains extensive data on federal employees, including names, salaries, and duty stations. OPM withheld the names and certain duty-station details for over 800,000 federal employees, citing Exemption 6 of FOIA, which protects personal privacy. The key issue before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was whether this withholding was justified under Exemption 6, especially concerning duty-station information independently of employee names.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit Court affirmed the district court's decision to allow OPM to withhold the names of federal employees in five sensitive agencies and those in twenty-four sensitive occupations under FOIA Exemption 6, recognizing a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the public's interest in disclosure. Furthermore, the Court reversed the district court's ruling that allowed disclosure of duty-station information for some sensitive occupations. The appellate court concluded that OPM was justified in withholding all duty-station information, even when decoupled from employee names, as it posed a potential risk of harassment or attack against the employees.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents to support its reasoning. Notably:

GRAND CENTRAL PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. CUOMO: Emphasizes FOIA’s purpose to promote open government and transparency.
National Council of La Raza v. U.S. Department of Justice: Highlights the narrow construction of FOIA exemptions and the burden on the government to justify withholding information.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE v. WASHINGTON POST CO.: Establishes the criteria for determining whether information falls under FOIA's Exemption 6.
Wood v. FBI: Discusses the balance between public interest and individual privacy in the context of FOIA Exemption 6.
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA and NIX v. UNITED STATES: Illustrate circumstances where employee names and roles are protected due to potential risks of harassment or attack.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's inclination to protect individual privacy over transparency when significant risks to personal safety are evident.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a two-step analysis as mandated by FOIA Exemption 6:

Determine whether the information is part of “personnel and medical files and similar files.”
Balance the individual's privacy interest against the public's interest in disclosure.

Applying this framework, the Court found that:

The CPDF unquestionably falls within the scope of Exemption 6 as it comprises detailed personnel information.
There exists a substantial privacy interest in withholding employee names and duty-station information, particularly for those in sensitive roles or agencies susceptible to harassment or attacks.
The public's interest in knowing the identities and duty stations of these employees is minimal and does not significantly contribute to the transparency or understanding of government operations.

The Court also addressed and dismissed arguments suggesting that withholding information by category rather than individually was improper, noting that large-scale data requests justify such an approach to protect privacy without overburdening the agency.

Impact

This judgment reinforces and broadens the protective scope of FOIA Exemption 6, particularly concerning the duty-station information of federal employees. It sets a clear precedent that even when names are withheld, associated duty-station data can also be protected if its disclosure poses a tangible risk to personal safety. This decision impacts future FOIA requests by:

Affirming the necessity of safeguarding sensitive information beyond just personal identifiers.
Providing a legal basis for agencies to adopt more comprehensive privacy protections in their data releases.
Limiting the scope of information accessible to researchers and the public, thereby balancing transparency with security concerns.

Additionally, it underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting FOIA with a nuanced understanding of privacy and public interest, particularly in the context of national security and employee safety.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): A federal law that grants the public the right to access records from any federal agency, promoting transparency in government.

Exemption 6: A specific provision within FOIA that allows federal agencies to withhold information from disclosure if it relates to personal privacy, particularly personnel and medical files.

Central Personnel Data File (CPDF): A comprehensive database managed by OPM containing detailed records of federal employees, including personal and occupational information.

Duty-Station Information: Data detailing the location or assignment of an employee within an organization, which can include workplace addresses or organizational codes indicating geographic placement.

Privacy Interest: The concern or right of an individual to keep certain personal information confidential and protected from public disclosure.

Public Interest: The benefit or concern of the general public that may be served by disclosing information, which must be weighed against privacy interests under FOIA Exemption 6.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in Long v. Office of Personnel Management significantly reinforces the protective scope of FOIA Exemption 6, particularly concerning the disclosure of federal employees' duty-station information. By affirming that such data can be withheld to prevent potential harassment or attacks, even when decoupled from employee names, the judgment balances the imperative of governmental transparency with the paramount need to safeguard individual privacy and security. This precedent sets a clear boundary for future FOIA requests, ensuring that while information remains accessible to maintain openness, it does not come at the expense of compromising the safety and privacy of federal employees.