Samantha J. Gross v. Human Resources Division (SPR 20253472)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 9, 2025 SPR25/3472 Michele Heffernan, Esq. General Counsel Human Resources Division One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Heffernan: I have received the petition of Samantha J. Gross, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Human Resources Division (Division/HRD) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 11, 2025, Ms. Gross requested the following for an identified individual: [1] The job posting for Western Mass Deputy Regional Director[;] [2] resume[;] [3] background check[;] [4] reference letters[;] [5] references[;] [6] Any other application materials[.] The Division responded on November 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Gross petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3472, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Michele Heffernan, Esq. SPR25/3472 Page 2 December 9, 2025 Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Division’s November 21st Response In its November 21, 2025 response, the Division cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested resume. The Division further stated, “[t]he Human Resources Division is not in possession of [an identified individual’s] background check, reference letters, references, or application materials.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Gross states, “HRD did not provide sufficient or specific reasoning for denying my request, and therefore I would like to appeal ...” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Personnel Information While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386.

Michele Heffernan, Esq. SPR25/3472 Page 3 December 9, 2025 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co. v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. In its response, the Division explained, “[t]he Human Resources Division is withholding [an identified individual’s] resume under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(c) as it contains personnel information. Clause (c) categorically exempts personnel files of all current and former state employees from disclosure.” While this office has previously determined that resumes may be disclosed, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has found that “. . . a resume submitted as part of an employment application falls within a core category of personnel information useful in making employment decisions, and is therefore absolutely exempt from disclosure under the first clause of Exemption (c).” See AGO’s May 7, 2020 letter regarding SPR19/2399 (Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 10, 2019). Further, this finding that personnel records are absolutely exempt from disclosure has recently been upheld by the courts. Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395 (June 20, 2024) (“personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) . . .”); See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. Conclusion Given that the courts and AGO have determined that employment applications and resumes are absolutely exempt from disclosure, accordingly, this matter is now closed. Please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Samantha J. Gross