Municipal – Public Records Act – City Employee Personnel Records

While employee names must be disclosed as public information, a trial court exceeded its authority by ordering the release of confidential personnel records rather than permitting only limited examination.

We affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a trial court order compelling disclosure of certain records.

We addressed the intersection of the Public Records Act and statutory protections for municipal employee personnel files. The dispute arose after a news organization requested records related to an internal investigation of a police officer accused of excessive force. The Town produced some materials but withheld others, including an investigative report (the ISS Report) and portions of an email, asserting that these materials constituted confidential personnel records under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-168.

The trial court ordered partial disclosure, requiring the Town to release portions of the ISS Report and to provide an unredacted version of the email revealing employee names. On appeal, we first addressed whether the ISS Report could be disclosed. We accepted that the report qualified as a confidential personnel record, meaning it was not subject to public disclosure absent a statutory exception. Although § 160A-168(c)(4) permits a court to allow a person to “examine” portions of such records, this authority is limited. Relying on prior precedent, we held that the statute does not authorize broad public release or dissemination of personnel records, but only narrowly tailored access consistent with legislative intent to maintain confidentiality.

Because the trial court ordered the Town to “release” portions of the ISS Report, rather than merely permitting limited examination, we concluded that it exceeded its statutory authority. We further noted that the record lacked the full ISS Report reviewed in camera, preventing meaningful appellate review of the trial court’s specific disclosure determinations. Accordingly, the portion of the order requiring release of the ISS Report was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the statutory limitations.

We also rejected the trial court’s reliance on a separate statutory provision governing criminal investigative materials, finding that it did not apply and could not serve as a basis for disclosure.

In contrast, we affirmed the trial court’s order requiring disclosure of employee names contained in the email. We reasoned that § 160A-168(b) explicitly designates certain information, including employee names, as public records, even when contained within otherwise confidential personnel files. Thus, disclosing names did not undermine the statute’s confidentiality protections because that information is expressly made public by law.

Ultimately, the decision underscores a careful balancing between transparency and privacy: while North Carolina’s Public Records Act favors broad access to government information, statutory protections for personnel records impose meaningful limits. Courts may permit limited access to such records when justice requires, but they must do so narrowly and may not authorize general public release inconsistent with legislative intent.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Gray Media Group Inc. v. Town of Matthews (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-064-26, 19 pp.) (Julee Flood, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court (Donald R. Cureton Jr., J.) Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Daniel E. Peterson, for defendant-appellant. Ballard Spahr LLP, by Lauren P. Russell, for plaintiff-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals