City Asks Judge to Reconsider Name-Clearing Hearing

JONESBORO, Ark. – City leaders are asking a judge to reconsider his order granting a name-clearing hearing to a police officer fired for speaking at a bond hearing.

In the case of Rachel Anderson v. the City of Jonesboro, its mayor, and police chief, a new motion was filed Monday morning, February 12, by the defendants. In the motion, Chief Rick Elliott and Mayor Harold Copenhaver ask the court to reconsider its February 2 decision to issue a preliminary injunction granting the plaintiff a name-clearing hearing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

In the motion, attorney Christopher Stevens writes that defendants have pointed out that no right to a name-clearing hearing has ever been recognized under Arkansas law and no right should be now.

“The Court’s February 2 Order did not cite or explain the legal basis for Plaintiff’s due process claim. Plaintiff should not be provided a remedy absent a legal basis. Defendants respectfully request that the Court reconsider its February 2 Order or, in the alternative, make findings under Arkansas law indicating the legal basis for granting Plaintiff injunctive relief in the form of a name-clearing hearing.”

Stevens writes that the court made no finding of a stigma the plaintiff has suffered. In the next section, he adds that the first element of federal due process claims for a name-clearing hearing is showing stigma from defendants statements. He writes that, when looking solely at statements made by the defendants, “it is clear they do not rise to the level of stigma required under federal law.”

According to Stevens, federal law requires a finding that the stigmatizing statements be false. The defense points out that Anderson testified that statements made by the chief of police were his opinion. Stevens asserts that an opinion is not a factual assertion that can be proven true or false.

Each section of the city’s motion takes to task different arguments that Anderson’s team made during the hearing in January. Stevens argues that Anderson did not request the name-clearing hearing because she never emailed Elliott, the person responsible for hiring in the department. He argued that the Arkansas Supreme Court has decided reputational damage does not constitute irreparable harm sufficient to warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction.

The defense also pointed out that Anderson testified she had interviews with different employers since the termination, but that she was waiting on the results of this case before deciding if she will accept a job offer. Stevens argues that the supreme court has dismissed this as irreparable harm.

“If a name-clearing hearing is conducted, and this Court later finds that Plaintiff is not successful on the merits of her claim, there is no adequate way to reverse the preliminary injunction.”

Finally, the motion seeks to have the injunction modified, if it isn’t reversed all-together. Stevens argues that the requirement is only that the plaintiff be heard. He argues for the court not to grant Anderson the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, which would include the mayor. The paragraph also brings up that the Jonesboro City Council is not a party to this case and should not be conducting the hearing.

Read More: City’s Motion to Reconsider

Anderson’s legal team is planning to file a response to the motion. Lucien Gillham of Sutter & Gillham released a statement to NEA Report on Monday.

“We trust in the judgment of the court,” said Gillham. “The defendants have already admitted to illegal retaliation. The parties were ordered to mediation after the hearing. The mayor should listen to the court. The mayor’s pride should not get in the way of what’s best for the city.”