Personnel Files

Cited	Statutes	Annotation
Board of Ed. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty	61.878	There is no unqualified right for one governmental entity to examine the total personnel files of another governmental entity; accordingly, where the Human Rights Commission sought all personnel records of complainant and three (3) other school security officers in an employment promotion sex discrimination case, the Board of Education need only disclose such information as remains after it “sanitizes” the records, pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, to remove material not germane to the action. Board of Education v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Com., 625 S.W.2d 109, 1981 Ky. App. LEXIS 302 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981). Link
Cape Publications v. City of Louisville	61.878	In a case where a newspaper sought disclosure, pursuant to the Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 et seq., of performance evaluations of an employee who was convicted of theft arising from his employment with an agency, redaction of the records to remove truly personal information was the best solution. Cape Publ'ns v. City of Louisville, 191 S.W.3d 10, 2006 Ky. App. LEXIS 101 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). Link
Valentine v. Personnel Cabinet	61.878	Appellant was not entitled to inspect the personnel file of the prosecuting attorney in appellant’s criminal case under the Kentucky Open Records Act because disclosure amounted to a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under KRS 61.878(1)(a) and served no public purpose. Valentine v. Pers. Cabinet, 322 S.W.3d 505, 2010 Ky. App. LEXIS 139 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010). Link

Disclaimer:
The Sunshine Law Library is not exhaustive and may contain errors from source documents or the import process. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice. It is always best to consult with primary sources and appropriate counsel before taking any action.