Special Judge Assigned by Chief Justice to Rachel Anderson v. Jonesboro Case

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – The case of Rachel Anderson v. The City of Jonesboro, its mayor, and police chief finally has a judge.

Retired Circuit Judge Bentley E. Story was assigned to the case by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Court records show the order was filed at 3:52 PM on January 10.

Under the authority vested in the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas by Act 496 of 1965-as amended, and Ark. Const. Amend. 80, and pursuant to the written request of the Craighead County Circuit Clerk, the Hon. Bentley E. Story (Bar #74140), Retired Circuit Judge, is hereby assigned to the 2nd Judicial Circuit to hear the following case…

The court filing says that the assignment includes all ancillary proceedings which may arise in connection with the case.

Parties have been waiting for over a month now for a decision on a motion for a preliminary injunction in the case by the plaintiff. 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.

“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 by Anderson’s lawyers 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?”

On behalf of the defendants in the case, Christopher M. Stevens filed the response to the request on Dec. 22. The response says, “the plaintiff can prove neither success on the merits of her underlying claim nor that she will be irreparably harmed without the injunction. As a result, her motion should be denied.”

The defendants argue that the plaintiff’s claim fails due to several reasons:

• Failure to Request a Name-Clearing Hearing: The defendant alleges the plaintiff did not request a name-clearing hearing before filing the lawsuit and that courts have previously ruled that the absence of such a request before litigation bars any recovery.
• Insufficient Evidence of Stigmatization: The defendant contests that the statements made by the employer (Chief Elliott’s termination letter and subsequent statements) were not public accusations that could constitute a deprivation of the plaintiff’s liberty interest. The defendant asserts that the statements were factual and did not attack the plaintiff’s character in a manner necessary to establish a constitutional violation.
• Absence of Irreparable Harm: The defendant challenges the plaintiff’s claim of irreparable harm to her ability to secure employment or her reputation in the community. It’s argued that reputational harm doesn’t justify a preliminary injunction under Arkansas law.

Wave after wave of judges recusing from the case has delayed a decision on the motion. With the assignment of Judge Story, the case will now finally move forward.