The Attorney General of Texas 

Ikcenlbcr 1, 1980 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Honorable Robert Bernstein, M.D., 

F.A.C.P. 

Commissioner of Health 

Texas Department of Health 

1100 West 49th Street 

Austin, Texas 78756 

Dear Dr. Bernstein: 

Opinion No. lrlw-283 

Re: Whether a public employee’s 

home telephone number and dete 

of birth are open under the Open 

Records Act 

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 unwarranted 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