Rachel Anderson Wins Injunction for Name-Clearing Hearing, City Plans Appeal

Judge Grants Anderson Right to Name-Clearing Hearing Against City of Jonesboro Officials

JONESBORO, Ark. – Rachel Anderson has won her right to have a name-clearing hearing in her case against the City of Jonesboro, the chief of police, and the communications director.

The order granting the motion for preliminary injunction was signed on February 2. In it, Judge Bentley Story wrote that the plaintiff is entitled to a name-clearing hearing before the entire city council.

“She will have the right to testify and to call and cross-examine witnesses, including Mayor Copenhaver, Police Chief Elliott, and Bill Campbell,” the judge wrote at the end of his ruling.

The judge wrote in the order that, while misuse of a police take home vehicle was listed as a violation of department policy, Anderson was cleared. In addition, “he never informed the public that the Plaintiff was exonerated of those accusations.”

Perhaps the most notable section of the judge’s ruling was second 20, where the judge wrote that the evidence presented at January 24th’s hearing leads the court to believe there is a likelihood of success on merits at trial – although not a guarantee.

“It is this court’s opinion that the Plaintiff has satisfied the second test for an injunction, that being the likelihood of success on the merits,” Story wrote in his decision.

A date has not been set for the hearing.

It should also be noted that the name-clearing hearing is only part of the overall lawsuit against the city. Anderson is still seeking damages in the civil case. The case will continue into and past the name-clearing hearing.

Read More: INJUNCTION

The attorney for the city, Christopher Stevens, issued a statement Friday afternoon:

“The City plans to file an appeal. We will let the legal process play out and expect that in the end, the correct decision will be reached.”

Luther Sutter, on behalf of Rachel Anderson, issued this statement in response:

This is just another example of the Arkansas Municipal League wasting taxpayer money. The correct response is the do the right thing. Not hide behind expensive lawyers.

---

Summarizing the Judge’s Ruling

The eight page ruling was a best-case scenario for Rachel Anderson and a worst-case for the city. If the city is not able to win an appeal overturning the judge’s decision, the mayor and others will be questioned at a city council meeting by Anderson’s legal team. It poses a major political risk to Copenhaver, a first-term mayor who is hoping for his first reelection this year.

The court began its finding with basic facts about the case. Those include Anderson filing her complaint on Dec. 8, 2023, seeking compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages, an injunction requiring that she be granted a name-clearing hearing, a public retraction of negative statements against her, cleansing of her file, backpay, front pay or reinstatement, a trial by jury, an injunction forcing the city to modify its policies, and for attorney’s fees and costs.

The judge wrote that the criteria deciding the subject of the name-clearing hearing are

1. whether irreparable harm will result from the absence of an injunction, and
2. whether the party requesting it has shown they are likely to succeed at trial.

From there, the judge accepted that Anderson had spoken at a meeting against the bond issue and was subsequently fired over it. The court found that both Mayor Copenhaver and Chief Elliott made the joint decision to terminate the plaintiff.

The subject of the take-home vehicle allegations was next. The judge found that, while the misuse of the vehicle is listed as a violation of department policy in the termination letter, it was not the reason for the termination, and no one amended the letter to reflect she had been cleared. The judge ruled that the police chief did not inform the public that the Plaintiff was exonerated of those accusations.

Next was the topic of the city’s argument that no name-clearing hearing had been requested. Chief Elliott was never sent a copy of the email requesting a name-clearing hearing. In section 22, the court found that the plaintiff did give sufficient notice of her demand for a name-clearing hearing, even without the chief getting the email.

Going back to the criteria (1. and 2.) for granting such a hearing, Story wrote that the plaintiff had shown irreparable harm would result if the injunction was not granted. Furthermore, he wrote that the entire body of evidence presented on January 24 suggests the plaintiff is likely to win the case – although he stops short of guaranteeing that outcome.