26-ORD-011 – Melanie Barker/Cabinet for Health and Family Services

Opinion Content:

January 13, 2026

In re: Melanie Barker/Cabinet for Health and Family Services

Summary: The Cabinet for Health and Family Services (“the Cabinet”)
did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it withheld
“records containing information of a personal nature where the public
disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy.”

Open Records Decision

Melanie Barker (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Cabinet for the
“Employee Identification Badge” for two named individuals. The Appellant specified
that the records should include “a photo” and that she wanted “that photo for both as
well.” The Cabinet denied her request under KRS 61.878(1)(a) because “public
records containing information of a personal nature in which disclosure of [sic] would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy are exempt from disclosure.”
This appeal followed.

KRS 61.878(1)(a) exempts from disclosure “[p]ublic records containing
information of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. It requires a “comparative
weighing of the antagonistic interests” between privacy and the public interest in
disclosure. Ky. Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times
Co., 826 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Ky. 1992). The Kentucky Supreme Court has established a
balancing test in which “the public’s right to expect its agencies properly to execute
their functions” is measured against the “countervailing public interest in personal
privacy.” Id. at 328. Whether a public agency has properly relied on KRS 61.878(1)(a)
is “intrinsically situational.” Id. In reviewing an agency’s denial of an open records
request based on the personal privacy exemption, the courts and the Office balance

the public’s right to know what is happening within government against the personal
privacy interest at stake in the record. See Zink v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Workers’
Claims, 902 S.W.2d 825, 828 (Ky. App. 1994).

The Office has held that public employees have a privacy interest in their
photographs. See, e.g., 21-ORD-117; 20-ORD-005; 11-ORD-139; 08-ORD-014.
Similarly, the Office had found that employee identification numbers may be redacted
under KRS 61.878(1)(a). See, e.g., 16-ORD-274, 16-ORD-194, 09-ORD-049. Moreover,
an ordinary photograph of an employee, which does not depict the employee engaging
in any type of governmental activity, would shed little light on “what [the]
government is doing.” Zink, 902 S.W.2d at 829.

Here, the Appellant acknowledged that some information on the employees’
identification badge would be exempt from public disclosure, such as Social Security
numbers, home addresses, or medical information. Yet, she presents no
countervailing public interest in disclosure of specific Cabinet employee’s
identification badges, which typically contain an employee identification number or
other identifying information, or a photograph.1 Thus, the Appellant fails to explain
how specific Cabinet employees’ identification badges and photographs relate to their
public duties. To the contrary, such employee identification badges and photographs
shed little light on the Cabinet’s execution of its functions. As a result, the Cabinet
did not violate the Act when it denied a request for its employees’ identification
badges and photographs.2

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall be notified
of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in
any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to [email protected].

1 The Appellant asserts that, according to Google, “[i]n Kentucky, photo ID badges themselves are
generally considered public records and are subject to disclosure.” She further asserts that public
employees “are required to present to us their badge with their photo so we know who they are and we
are not just letting some stranger who says they are ‘so and so’ into our facilities.” But she does not
provide any legal authority to support these assertions.
2 Under KRS 61.878(4), “if any public record contains material which is not excepted under this
section, the public agency shall separate the excepted and make the nonexcepted material available
for examination.” However, it is unclear that any nonexcepted material remains on these specific
employees’ identification badges.

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General

Melanie Barker
Peyton Sands
Natalie Nelson
Evelyn L. Miller