The discharged cop’s case against the City of Jonesboro is withdrawn by the circuit judges of Craighead County

Little Rock, Arkansas – A sacked Jonesboro Police Department employee has decided to assign a circuit court judge at random to hear a lawsuit against the City of Jonesboro and its police chief after all Craighead County circuit judges withdrew from the matter.

Four circuit court judges have resigned from their positions as judges in Rachel Anderson’s lawsuit, which was filed by the former senior video analyst for the JPD, according to court records.

A different circuit judge outside of Craighead County will now be assigned to hear the lawsuit.

After objecting to the goal of a $17.5 million bond proposal that Jonesboro Mayor Harold Copenhaver was supporting at a public city council meeting, Anderson was let go by the police department last month.

The public’s calls for an inquiry into the circumstances behind her dismissal were sparked by her termination.

Anderson’s actions at that meeting, according to Jonesboro Police Chief Rick Elliott, were against city policy and “may jeopardize a critical funding stream.”

” He described Anderson’s actions as “arrogant and insubordinate.”

On December 8, Anderson and her legal representative filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

The City of Jonesboro stated on December 22 outlining its reasoning for rejecting the proposal.

The Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65, which controls the granting of preliminary injunctions, was cited by the City. According to the rule, a court must decide whether irreparable harm will occur if an injunction is not granted and whether the moving party has shown that there is a reasonable chance of winning the case on its merits.

The City asserts that Anderson is unable to demonstrate that her claim is likely to prevail on its own merits or that her entitlement to a name-clearing hearing was unlawfully denied.

In its statement, the City said that under federal law, an at-will public employee has no right to a hearing in connection with the employee’s discharge. However, there is an exception—when a public employer “creates and disseminates a false and defamatory impression about the at-will employee.”

Anderson’s attorney said in a statement that “the bottom line is, why is the mayor so afraid to give her a hearing? Additionally, their response is false. They say she didn’t ask for a hearing and she did. And we can prove it.”