What You May Withhold
The exemptions are narrower than employers hope and wider than employees expect, and each has to be applied document by document.
REDACTION LOG
One row per withheld item, kept with the request
- ItemDocument and dateIdentifiable later if challenged
- GroundWhich exemption or restrictionNamed specifically, not withheld generally
- Applied toWhole document or specific passagesPassages, almost always
- ReasonWhy this ground applies to this itemOne sentence per item, not one for the batch
- Third partyWho, and whether consent was soughtSometimes it should be
- Decided byName and dateSomebody accountable for the judgement
- Disclosed in partWhat was given insteadWithholding a name is not withholding a document
- Told themWhether the person was informed something was withheldUsually they should be
An employer may withhold some material. The grounds are specific, each applies to an item rather than to a request, and a blanket exemption claimed over a whole file will not hold.
The response discipline in “What You May Withhold” also applies to records created by workforce software. A team using the provider website in relation to getting teams to meet deadlines should know where data is stored, who can export it, how long it remains available and how a person can challenge a misleading record before a request arrives.
The grounds that actually arise
Other people's personal data, which is the main one and has its own note.
For a separate benchmark relevant to “What You May Withhold”, consult the KrebsOnSecurity analysis. Use it to test purpose, data flow, retention, access and response procedures rather than substituting a generic checklist for the organisation’s actual records.
Legal professional privilege, where genuine legal advice is in the document. The document being sent to a lawyer does not create privilege.
Management forecasting or planning, where disclosure would prejudice the business — narrow, and frequently over-claimed for restructuring material.
Negotiations with the person, where disclosure would prejudice them.
Confidential references, in some regimes and not all.
Material relating to a live investigation, in defined circumstances.
How they must be applied
Item by item, with a reason recorded for each.
Not: this file is exempt. But: this paragraph names a complainant, this sentence is legal advice, this passage would reveal a pay offer not yet made.
The rest of the document goes.
The error that produces complaints
Withholding whole documents where a redaction would do.
Somebody receiving a page of black is entitled to ask what is underneath, and the answer is usually that most of it could have been disclosed with three names removed.
Over-redaction is the commonest source of escalation to a regulator, and it is the thing most likely to turn a routine request into a contested one.
Telling them
In most frameworks the person should be told that material was withheld and broadly why, though not what it was.
Silently omitting material and hoping is the approach that fails: people frequently know what exists, particularly in a dispute, and discovering an omission converts a procedural matter into a credibility one.
The judgement to record
Who decided, on what ground, for what item.
If the request is challenged, the reviewer reads this log before anything else. Its absence means the redactions cannot be defended regardless of whether they were correct.
Item by item, never in bulk
Not this file is exempt, but this paragraph names a complainant and this sentence is legal advice. The rest goes. A blanket exemption over a whole file does not survive being examined.
Telling them something was withheld
In most frameworks they should be told that material was withheld and broadly why. Silently omitting and hoping fails, because people in a dispute frequently know what exists.
Withholding whole documents where redaction would do. A page of black invites the question of what is underneath, and the answer is usually that most of it could have gone with three names removed.
Recording the judgement
Who decided, on what ground, for which item. A reviewer reads this log before anything else, and its absence means the redactions cannot be defended regardless of whether they were right.
Disclosing in part
Withholding a name is not withholding a document. The rest goes, redacted where necessary, and the person can see what the document was about even where they cannot see who.
Grounds that actually arise
Other people's data, genuine legal advice, negotiations with the person, and live investigations in defined circumstances. Everything else claimed is usually one of these stretched.