Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 25-4-116 (2026)

Records and Reports of Employing Units.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every employing unit shall keep true and accurate work records containing such information as is necessary for the administration of this chapter. Such records shall be open to inspection and be subject to being copied by the secretary or his authorized representatives at any reasonable time and as often as may be necessary. The secretary, an appeals tribunal, any member of the board of appeals created by the industrial relations law, or any authorized representative of the secretary may require from such employer or employing unit such reports covering persons employed by him or it, or employment, wages, hours, unemployment, and related matters as are necessary to the effective administration of this chapter. Information thus obtained shall be held confidential, except to the extent necessary for the proper presentation of the contest of a claim, and shall not be published or be open to public inspection in any manner revealing the employers’ or employing units’ identity. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be fined not less than $20.00 nor more than $200.00 or imprisoned for not longer than 30 days or both. All letters, reports, communications, and other matters, written or oral, from employer or employee to each other or to the secretary or any of his agents, representatives, or employees, or to any official or board functioning under this chapter, which shall have been written, sent, delivered, or made in connection with the requirements and administration of this chapter, shall be absolutely privileged and shall not be made the subject matter or basis for any civil action for slander or libel in any court. The secretary may cause to be made such summaries, compilations, photographs, duplications, or reproductions of any records, reports or transcripts thereof or cancelled benefit payment checks as he may deem advisable for the effective and economical preservation of the information contained therein, and such summaries, compilations, photographs, duplications, or reproductions, duly authenticated, shall be admissible in any proceeding under this chapter if the original record or records would have been admissible therein. The secretary may provide by regulations for the destruction or disposition, after reasonable periods, of any records, reports, transcripts, or reproductions thereof or other papers in his custody, the preservation of which is no longer necessary for the establishment of contribution liability or benefit rights or for any purpose necessary for the proper administration of this chapter, including any required audit thereof.

(Acts 1939, No. 497, p. 721; Code 1940, T. 26, §233; Acts 1943, No. 310, p. 281, §13.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Johnson v. Fed. Express Corp., 147 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (M.D. Ala. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Johnson v. Fed. Express Corp., 147 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (M.D. Ala. 2001). · cites it 2× “” Ala. Code § 25-4-116 (1975) (emphasis supplied).”

Smith v. Boyd Bros. Transp., Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (M.D. Ala. 2005). · cites it 2× “Alabama Department of Industrial Relations: BBT’s representations to the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, that Smith was employed and on family medical leave, are privileged under 1975 Ala.Code § 25-4-116. This provision states in pertinent part that: “All letters,…”

Nevins v. DCH Health Sys. (N.D. Ala. 2025). · cites it 2× “Ala. Code § 25-4-116 (stating that all communications “from employer or employee .”

United States v. Blasi, 462 F. Supp. 373 (M.D. Ala. 1979). “Assuming arguendo that Code of Alabama, § 25-2-22 and § 25-4-116 (1975), does create an absolute privilege, these statutes have no direct bearing on the controversy since the existence and extent of privilege in a Federal Grand Jury proceeding is a matter of federal common law.”

Thorne v. Big \D\" Disc. Auto Parts of Daleville, 92 F.R.D. 55 (1981). “The Department argues that its motion to quash should be granted on the ground that the recording is “absolutely privileged and confidential” under Ala.Code § 25-4-116 (1975). The plaintiff argues that the recording does not fall within the scope of the statute and that the…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.