The Attorney General of Texas
Ikcenlbcr 1, 1980
MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Honorable Robert Bernstein, M.D., Opinion No. lrlw-283
F.A.C.P.
Commissioner of Health Re: Whether a public employee’s
Texas Department of Health home telephone number and dete
1100 West 49th Street of birth are open under the Open
Austin, Texas 78756 Records Act
Dear Dr. Bernstein:
You have requested our decision regarding whether a public employee’s
home telephone number and date of birth are available to the public under
the Open Records Act, article 6252-17a, V.T.C.S.
Section 3(a)(2) of the act exempts from disclosure “information in
personnel files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly un-
warranted invasion of personal privacy.” In Open Records Decision No. 169
(1977), this office held that, absent special circumstances:
the overwhelming weight of authority holds that
there is normally no legally recognizable privacy
interest in one’s borne address.
Furthermore, the “special circumstances” necessary:
to bring home address [information] within the
section 3(a)(2) exception from disclosure must be
more than a &sire for privacy or a generalized fear
of harassment or retribution.
Prior to lhe issutlnce of Open Records Decision No. 169, the City
Public Service Uoard of the city of San Antonio and the Police Department
of the city of El Paso had asked their employees whether they wished to
assert a privacy interest in their home address, end if so, what facts or
circumstances would justify withholding the informalion. Of 1400 responses
submiltcd, this off&*, found only five indivihals:
who lvtvc botll lukun effective uction 110 restrict
public access to their telephone numbers] and have
nlso demonstrated lruly cxceptionul circumstances
‘such as, for instance, an imminent threat of physical
p. 905
rlcnorable Robert Ikrnstcin - Page Two (MW-263)
danger us opposed to 4 gcncralized and speculative fenr of
harrassmcnt or retribution.
In accordance with this standard, we believe that an employee is entitled to
withhold his home telephone number only if he can first demonstrate that he has taken
steps to restrict public access. to the number, including but not limited to maintaining
the number as unlisted. In addition, the employee must also demonstrate exceptional
circumstances such as an imminent threat of physical danger. Open Records Decision
No. 169 (1977). As wns noted in Open Records D>cision No. 169, the determination of
these questions must be made on 4 case-by-case basis, and the agency should make the
initial determination. The agency should submit for our consideration cnly those
clnims which it determines may legitimately fall within the exception.
As to the date of birth of 4 public employee, we have found no decision which has
held such information to be confidential. On the contrary, this office has on three
occasions said that information in licensing files, including date of birth, is subject to
disclceure. See Open Records Decision Nos. 215 (1978); 157 (1977); Attorney General
Opinion H-2421974). It is therefore our decision that the date of birth of a public
employee is not excepted from disclceure under the Open Records Act.
SUMMARY
A public employee’s date of birth is not excepted from
disclosure. A public employee’s home telephone number may be
excepted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General
RICHARD E. GRAY HI
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPlNlON COMMlT’l’EI~
Susan L. Garrison, Acting Chairman
Jon Bible
Ric* Gilpin
Eva Loutzcnhiscr
p. 906