R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-6.4-1 (2026)

Inspection of files

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) Every employer shall, upon not less than seven (7) days’ advance notice, holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays excluded, and at any reasonable time other than the employee’s work hours and upon the written request of an employee, permit an employee to inspect personnel files that are used or have been used to determine that employee’s qualifications for employment, promotion, additional compensation, termination, or disciplinary action. This inspection shall be made in the presence of an employer or employer’s designee.

(2) The employee shall not be permitted to make any copies of nor remove his or her personnel file from the immediate place of inspection located on the business premises.

(3) The employer may charge the employee a fee reasonably related to the cost of supplying copies of requested documents.

(4) This section does not apply to records of an employee relating to the investigation of a possible criminal offense or records prepared for use in any civil, criminal, or grievance proceedings, any letter of reference, recommendations, managerial records kept or used only by the employer, confidential reports from previous employers, and managerial planning records.

(b) Employers are not required to permit an inspection of any employee’s personnel file or records on more than three (3) occasions in any calendar year.

(c) An employer that, upon request by a prospective employer or a current or former employee, provides fair and unbiased information about a current or former employee’s job performance is presumed to be acting in good faith and is immune from civil liability for the disclosure and the consequences of the disclosure. The presumption of good faith is rebuttable upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the information disclosed was:

(1) Knowingly false;

(2) Deliberately misleading;

(3) Disclosed for a malicious purpose; or

(4) Violative of the current or former employee’s civil rights under the employment discrimination laws in effect at the time of the disclosure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2007–2015 · leading case: Roderick A. McGarry v. Marilyn Pielech, 108 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roderick A. McGarry v. Marilyn Pielech, 108 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015). · cites it 8× “14 (2012), 7 as well as G.L.1956 § 28-6.4-1. 8 The trial justice ad *1004 dressed the requested instructions before Superintendent Nasif testified because she presumed her ruling would impact plaintiffs questioning of him.”
Kevorkian v. Glass, 913 A.2d 1043 (R.I. 2007). · cites it 2× “This omission placed plaintiff in a peculiar position: to rebut the good faith presumption attached to defendant's publication by § 28-6.4-1 (c), plaintiff’s only opportunity to point out specific facts showing malice was to do so orally at the hearing.”
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.