JONESBORO, Ark. – A new motion was filed Friday afternoon seeking a public name clearing hearing in the case of Rachel Anderson vs. The City of Jonesboro, Mayor Harold Copenhaver, and Chief of Police Rick Elliott.
Through her attorneys, Sutter & Gillham, P.L.L.C., Anderson’s motion was filed on December 8 seeking a preliminary injunction by the court for a name clearing hearing before the Jonesboro City Council, with the right to testify and to call and cross-examine witnesses, including the Mayor, the Chief, and Bill Campbell by name.
“The Mayor and Chief have chosen to make a public attack on the plaintiff for exercising her rights by attacking her trustworthiness, loyalty, ability as an employee, and her honesty,” section 7 of the Motion claims. “If they are willing to say it to the public, they should be willing to stand by it during cross-examination. Ms. Anderson will testify at this hearing and fears no cross-examination or lawyer. Surely the Mayor and Chief are not afraid to do so?”
Because a request for a preliminary injunction takes priority in a case, a decision on this could come as soon as next week.
Below, in its entirety, is the full motion. Below it, a link to the Brief in Support of the Motion. Both are now public record.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Come the Plaintiff, RACHEL ANDERSON, by and through counsel, SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C.; and, for Her Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, she states:
1. A circuit court is required to consider at least two things in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction under Ark. R. Civ. P. 65: (1) whether irreparable harm will result in the absence of an injunction or restraining order, and (2) whether the moving party has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. See Baptist Health v. Murphy, 365 Ark. 115, 226 S.W.3d 800 (2006).
2. Defendants have caused a threat of irreparable harm to her reputation by falsely, publicly, accusing her of policy violations, misuse of public property, insubordination, and implying an issue of dishonesty by stating that her actions have caused a loss of trust. Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627-28, 97 S.Ct. 882, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977); Singleton v. Cecil, 176 F.3d 419, 427 (8th Cir.1999) (en bane), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 966, 120 S.Ct. 402, 145 L.Ed.2d 313 (1999); See Merritt v. Reed, 120 F.3d 124, 126 (8th Cir.1997).
3. A name-clearing hearing will not harm Defendants, and the cost to provide the hearing is far outweighed by the threat of permanent harm to Plaintiff’s reputation and the public interest in promoting civil rights and government accountability.
4. Plaintiff is likely to succeed in that she can prove indisputably all elements of a due process claim on a name clearing theory: (1) an official made a defamatory statement that resulted in a stigma; (2) the defamatory statement occurred during the course of terminating the employee; (3) the defamatory statement was made public; (4) the legal status of the plaintiff was altered or extinguished.” Crooks v. Lynch, 557 F.3d 846, 849 (8th Cir. 2009).
5. The public interest is served by preventing irreparable harm to those citizens and government employees who raise substantial issues of civil rights abuse; citizens should not be discouraged to vindicate and protect rights which enure to all citizens. It is surely in the public interest to grant this Motion.
6. Plaintiff should be given a name clearing hearing, with the following components: (1) at a city council meeting; (2) she has the right to testify and may be cross-examined; (3) she may call witnesses to testify who may be cross-examined; (4) she shall have the right to call Chief Elliott, the Mayor, and Bill Campbell as witnesses and cross examine them. McGhee v. Draper, 564 F.2d 902, 911 (10th Cir.1977); Campbell, 741 F.2d at 1346
7. The Mayor and Chief have chosen to make a public attack on the plaintiff for exercising her rights by attacking her trustworthiness, loyalty, ability as an employee, and her honesty. If they are willing to say it to the public, they should be willing to stand by it during cross-examination. Ms. Anderson will testify at this hearing and fears no cross-examination or lawyer. Surely the Mayor and Chief are not afraid to do so?
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, RACHEL ANDERSON, prays for an Order granting her Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and requiring Defendants to provide her with a name-clearing hearing before the City Council, with the right to testify and to call and cross-examine witnesses, including the Mayor, the Chief, and Bill Campbell; and, for all other proper relief.
To read the full Brief in Support of the Preliminary Injunction, which is 14 pages of a more detailed layout of each item contained above, view or download the PDF here:
Brief in Support of the Preliminary Injunction
SHARE THIS STORY WITH OTHERS:
Discover more from NEA Report
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks