Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Washington County Circuit Court


Kyle Sylvester, Circuit Clerk
2018-Jul-23 10:17:32
72CV-18-1805
C04D01 : 7 Pages
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
CIVIL DIVISION

JANE DOE PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO. 72CV-18-1805

FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS


a/k/a FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL
DISTRICT DEFENDANT

ANSWER

Defendant Fayetteville Public Schools (FPS), by and through its attorneys,

Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, PC, and for its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

(Complaint) states:

Parties and Jurisdiction

1. Upon information and belief, FPS admits that Plaintiff is a resident of

Washington County, Arkansas and that she is using the pseudonym Jane Doe. FPS

denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

2. FPS denies that it is also known as Fayetteville School District. FPS

admits it is a public school district located in Washington County, Arkansas.

3. Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint states conclusions of law with respect

to this Court’s jurisdiction and venue, for which no affirmative response is required. To

the extent a response is required, FPS admits the allegations.

Factual Background

4. FPS admits that Plaintiff, through her counsel, on or about March 14, 2018

alleged that she was being sexually harassed by the FPS Superintendent

(Superintendent). FPS denies that Plaintiff was sexually harassed.

1
5. FPS admits that when Plaintiff made her complaint, her counsel provided

text messages and voice recordings related to her relationship with the Superintendent.

FPS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

6. FPS admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

7. FPS admits the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

8. FPS admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

9. FPS admits the allegations in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

10. FPS admits the allegations in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

11. FPS admits the allegations in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

12. FPS admits the allegations in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint but

further states that it also determined that the requested records were personnel records

of the Superintendent as well as personnel records of other FPS employees.

13. FPS admits that Plaintiff sought an opinion from the Attorney General.

FPS notes that the Attorney General stated that one document titled “MW11” should not

be disclosed. FPS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

14. FPS admits that Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court pursuant to Ark. Code

Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(C). FPS denies that Plaintiff’s Complaint states any valid causes

of action against it and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever.

Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief

15. FPS adopts and reasserts all responses and denials contained in

Paragraphs 1-14 of this Answer as its response to Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

2
16. The allegations in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint state conclusions

of law, for which no affirmative response is required. To the extent a response is

required, FPS denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 and denies that Plaintiff is entitled

to declaratory relief or any relief whatsover.

17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint state conclusions

of law, for which no affirmative response is required. To the extent a response is

required, FPS denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 and denies that Plaintiff is entitled

to any declaratory relief or any relief whatsover.

18. The allegations in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint state conclusions

of law, for which no affirmative response is required. To the extent a response is

required, FPS denies the allegations.

19. The allegations in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint state conclusions

of law, for which no affirmative response is required. To the extent a response is

required, FPS denies the allegations.

20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Complaint state conclusions

of law, for which no affirmative response is required. To the extent a response is

required, FPS denies the allegations.

21. The allegations in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint state conclusions

of law, for which no affirmative response is required. To the extent a response is

required, FPS denies the allegations.

22. The allegations in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Complaint state conclusions

of law, for which no affirmative response is required. To the extent a response is

required, FPS denies the allegations.

3
23. FPS denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

24. FPS admits the records at issue do not deal with Plaintiff’s discipline or

termination. FPS has insufficient information from which to admit or deny that Plaintiff’s

children have faced questions and comments at school about their mother and,

therefore, denies same. FPS denies that Plaintiff was the victim of sexual harassment

and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

25. FPS admits that the termination of the Superintendent is a matter of public

concern. FPS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

and affirmatively states that it has protected Plaintiff’s personal privacy and will continue

to do so, to the extent allowed by law.

26. Plaintiff’s assertions that the contents of subject records contain

inflammatory information that “touches on the intimate details” of Plaintiff’s life and will

subject her and her family to “embarrassment, harassment, disgrace, or loss of

employment or friends” are matters of opinion and as such, are denied. FPS denies the

remaining allegations in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and further denies that

Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction or any relief whatsover.

27. FPS denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in her

“WHEREFORE” paragraph and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief

whatsoever.

28. FPS denies all allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, including

Plaintiff’s headings, not specifically admitted.

29. FPS reserves the right to further amend this Answer.

4
30. FPS affirmatively states that it determined the requested records were

subject to disclosure as job performance records and personnel records. FPS notified

the Superintendent, Plaintiff, and other affected employees that their records were

requested and of their rights to seek an opinion from the Attorney General to confirm

FPS’s interpretation that this information was releasable. Two individuals, one of whom

was Plaintiff, requested opinions. The Attorney General issued those opinions on July

9, 2018 stating that most of the records were releasable. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit

on July 11, 2018. Since that time, FPS has received both renewed and new FOIA

requests from multiple parties seeking the information Plaintiff has sued to have blocked

from release. Due to the instant case, FPS has notified the requesters that it will not

provide the requested information at this time and during the pendency of this case

unless otherwise directed by the court as Plaintiff is seeking judicial review pursuant to

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(C). Thus, FPS is caught in the middle of Plaintiff and

those individuals who have requested the documents that FPS has determined should

be released. Thus, FPS respectfully requests that the Court expeditiously review the

documents at issue and make a determination as to whether the records at issue may

be released.

Defenses

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. In making its determination that the records at issue should be released,

FPS acted in good faith and with appropriate and reasonable grounds for believing that

its actions were in compliance with appropriate legal authority. Specifically, FPS relied

on the FOIA and cases and opinion letters interpreting the FOIA in determining that the

5
documents at issue are subject to disclosure. Subsequent opinions from the Arkansas

Attorney General concurred, for the most part, with FPS’s determination. See Op. Ark.

Att'y Gen. 2018-083 (July 9, 2018) and Op. Ark. Att'y Gen. 2018-084 (July 9, 2018).

3. Plaintiff is not entitled to costs and attorney fees as FPS was legally

required to release and Plaintiff cannot prove actual damages, and hence can only

recover nominal damages.

4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by her failure to join necessary and

indispensable parties.

5. FPS pleads all defenses available to it under Rule 12 of the Arkansas

Rules of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, failure to state facts upon which

relief can be granted.

WHEREFORE, Fayetteville Public Schools prays that Plaintiff’s Complaint be

dismissed with prejudice and that FPS be awarded all fees and costs associated with

the matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Missy McJunkins Duke (#99167)


CROSS, GUNTER, WITHERSPOON
& GALCHUS, P.C.
500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Phone: 501-371-9999 / Fax: 501-371-0035
E-mail: mduke@cgwg.com

/s/ Missy McJunkins Duke

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of July, 2018, I electronically filed the
foregoing pleading with the Clerk of Court using the eFlex system, which shall send
notification of such filing to the following:

Suzanne G. Clark
CLARK LAW FIRM, PLLC
244 West Dickson Street, Suite 201
PO Box 4248
Fayetteville, AR 72702-4248
E-mail: sclark@clark-firm.com

/s/ Missy McJunkins Duke

236739

Вам также может понравиться