Mediation Date Set as Anderson’s Lawyers Respond to Motion to Reconsider

JONESBORO, Ark. – Rachel Anderson’s legal battle against the City of Jonesboro continued Tuesday morning with a date being set for mediation in the case, along with a new court filing by her lawyers.

Parties have agreed to Richard Ramsay in Little Rock as the mediator, with the mediation scheduled for 9 AM on March 28. Ramsay specializes in alternate dispute resolution, according to an article in Little Rock Soirée. He became a mediator in 2010 and opened Ramsay Mediation & Arbitration in 2016.

Advertisement
Advertisement

This comes as Anderson’s counsel responded late Monday to the city’s motion to reconsider. Lucien Gillham of Sutter & Gillham filed the plaintiff’s response.

The response begins by saying the defendants are trying to win the motion to reconsider based on a typo and not the facts of the law, pointing out that the defendants’ motion argues there is no Article 22 of the Arkansas Constitution. That argument was made over a typo, with Gillham writing that “an extra 2 does not give them a winning argument.”

Constitutionality is discussed in further detail for several sections of the legal brief.  Specifically, Article 2, Section 2 of the Arkansas Constitution is quoted, in bold, saying, ““All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and reputation.”

With defendants arguing that no case under Arkansas law recognizes the right to a name-clearing hearing, Gillham responded that the Arkansas Civil Rights Act states a court may look for guidance to state and federal decisions. He continues by arguing that the situation was made worse by stigmatizing statements made for retaliatory reasons by the city to the press.

Gillham writes that the defendants argued there was no finding of stigma while contradictorily arguing that the stigma the court found was not enough. “That completely misreads the Order,” the response says. The court noted the termination letter made a false claim she was being fired, in part, from misuse of a city vehicle. Gillham argues that letter was then improperly released in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. That, plus Anderson’s testimony that she had difficulty finding a reasonable job offer due to the publicity, establishes irreparable harm, according to Gillham.

The defendants made the argument in their motion to reconsider that the plaintiff had been responsible for the publication of her termination because she told a member of city council about it. Gillham said she has a right to petition if she feels her termination was illegal and she can not be blamed for that.

Then, there’s the argument that Anderson never properly requested a name-clearing hearing, because her email was sent to the mayor and not the police chief. Gillham calls this “ludicrous,” pointing out that the City of Jonesboro is the employer and not the police department.

The motion concludes by asking the court to hold firm on its order for a name-clearing hearing.

Read More: Anderson Response Motion to Reconsider