09-1163 Milner v. Department of the Navy

Listen to this article

FOIA
Exemptions; personnel rules

Because Exemption 2 to FOIA encompasses only records relating to employee relations and human resources issues, it does not apply to a request for explosives maps and data.

Exemption 2 shields only those records relating to “personnel rules and practices.” When used as an adjective in this manner, the key statutory word “personnel” refers to human resources matters. For example, a “personnel department” deals with employee problems and interviews applicants for jobs. FOIA Exemption 6 provides another example, protecting certain “personnel . . . files” from disclosure. §552(b)(6). “[T]he common and congressional meaning of . . . ‘personnel file’ ” is a file maintained by a human resources office collecting personal information about employees, such as examination results and work performance evaluations. Rose, supra, at 377. Exemption 2 uses “personnel” in the exact same way. An agency’s “personnel rules and practices” all share a critical feature: They concern conditions of employment in federal agencies—such matters as hiring and firing, work rules and discipline, compensation and benefits. These items currently fall within the so-called Low 2 exemption. And under this Court’s construction of the statutory language, Low 2 is all of 2.
FOIA’s purpose reinforces this reading. The statute’s goal is “broad disclosure,” and the exemptions must be “given a narrow compass.” Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U. S. 136, 151. A narrow construction stands on especially firm footing with respect to Exemption 2, which was intended to hem in the expansive withholding that occurred under the prior APA exemption for “internal management” records.
Exemption 2, as interpreted here, does not reach the requested explosives information. The data and maps, which calculate and visually portray the magnitude of hypothetical detonations, in no way relate to “personnel rules and practices,” as that term is most naturally understood.

575 F. 3d 959, reversed and remanded.

Local Effect: The opinion reverses Seventh Circuit precedent to the contrary. Kaganove v. EPA, 856 F.2d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 1988).

09-1163 Milner v. Department of the Navy

Kagan, J.; Alito, J., concurring; Breyer, J., dissenting.

Full Text