Judge Hears Arguments to Reconsider Name-Clearing Injunction in Anderson Case

JONESBORO, Ark. – City leaders were back in court on Friday as their lawyers asked the judge to reconsider his decision to grant a preliminary injunction in the Rachel Anderson lawsuit against the city.

Once again, Special Judge Bentley Story was left with the ultimate decision after hours of arguments from both sides that went longer than expected, again, on March 1 at the Craighead County Courthouse. Story signed an order on February 2 granting Anderson a name-clearing hearing in a preliminary injunction. But city leaders, who have already discussed an appeal, sought to persuade the judge to reconsider his decision. Mayor Harold Copenhaver and Chief Rick Elliott were both present at Friday’s setting, as was Anderson.

In their own words, much of what the city argued on March 1 was the same as what was argued on January 24 in court. However, the city had since added new representation to its roster with Annie Depper, of Fuqua Campbell, P.A. in Little Rock. Christopher Stevens, of the same law firm, remained as defendants’ counsel as did Assistant City Attorney Heather Owens.

The city hoped Depper, a more experienced attorney, would be able to break down the arguments that Anderson had suffered irreparable harm to her reputation as a result of being fired for speaking at a bond hearing in 2023. Although it was too early to tell what the special judge’s decision would be, city leadership was happier with their legal team’s performance than they were on January 24.

Depper, who argued the entire hearing for the defendants, began by pointing out the two key elements required for a preliminary-injunction: irreparable harm and likelihood of success on merits at trial. She said the city’s statements never rose to the level of being irreparably harmful because, “courts have held reputation harm is not irreparable harm.” She argued Anderson had received job inquiries and at least one job offer that proved she had not suffered damage to her reputation.

The defendants’ counsel continued arguing that no case law in Arkansas has established a name-clearing hearing. During his counter arguments, Anderson’s lawyer, Luther Sutter, admitted this was true. But he said that is why this is such an important case – because it could potentially define future rights for government employees.

But Depper went on to argue that the Arkansas Constitution does not specifically mention reputation as a right. Sutter seized this opportunity in his counter arguments to correct Depper. Sounding less than pleased, Depper said she appreciated opposing counsel calling her out on the mistake. However, she acknowledged she had been wrong, just not intentionally, she said.

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; and of pursuing their own happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Article 2, Section 2, Arkansas Constitution

Continuing on the point that irreparable harm was not done to Anderson, Depper discussed the two statements that the city had released with regard to her. One was the chief’s quote, which Depper did not argue had been made public, although she did argue his words were his own opinion and not statements of fact. The judge asked if the chief had made the statements as fact, rather than as his belief. The question was not answered as the judge reviewed a physical copy of the statement, which can be viewed here.

The other statement that is alleged to have been issued by the city was the release of Anderson’s termination letter. Depper argued Anderson had sent the letter out to members of the media as well as others before the city ever released it. As far as the substance inside of the letter, the biggest point of contention was the statement that complaints had been made against Anderson about the misuse of her take-home vehicle. Depper said it was true there had been complaints, pointing out that the letter doesn’t actually say the complaints are valid. But Sutter countered this argument by saying that including that in the letter was tantamount to calling Anderson a thief. The city’s lawyers disagreed.

As she closed out her oral arguments, Depper once again argued Anderson had not made a request for a name-clearing hearing to her employer, the chief of police. Instead, by sending it to the mayor and city council, Depper argued she never requested the hearing from her employer. Judge Story had several questions for Depper, beginning on this topic. The judge brought up testimony that the mayor and police chief both gave that it had been a joint decision between the two to fire her.

Story said he was trying to be careful in his order. He said he was struggling with the idea of changing his ruling but he was also having difficulty on deciding not to modify the order.

“I don’t want to decide this case for the jury,” Story said.

Story asked what it does to a jury to tell them there is no irreparable harm. But Owens spoke up on this point, saying it is a different standard for preliminary injunction than it is for a ruling in the case itself.

The judge said this case was important, acknowledging that the name-clearing hearing hasn’t been decided in Arkansas, as of yet. He went so far as to say he expects the losing party, whoever that may be, will appeal. In light of that, he said he hoped he wouldn’t mess the case up too much before their review.

Following a bathroom break, it was Sutter’s turn to argue before the court. After bringing up the mishap about the word “reputation” being in the Arkansas Constitution, Sutter said he thinks of the constitution as a document that was meant to stand for more than it is, rather than less.

Sutter said the court’s order had “opened the eyes of the community to the corruption this mayor and police chief have exhibited,” with regards to Anderson. He argued that the court made the right choice by recognizing the rights of the individual, adding that changing the decision would render the statute “superfluous.”

As both attorneys concluded their arguments, they each asked the court to consider smaller points, if it was to rule against their side. Depper asked the court to not grant the right to call the police chief and mayor at the name-clearing hearing, if it was to go forward. Sutter acknowledged a split opinion on that specific issue.

Meanwhile, Sutter asked that if the judge was going to reverse his decision, that it not be exposed to or used to influence the jury. Depper agreed.

The court’s decision could come as soon as next week. The judge could modify the order for a preliminary injunction, leave it unchanged, or reverse it, entirely.

Mediation is expected to begin in the case on March 28.