Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANSWER
Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, PC, and for its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Complaint) states:
Washington County, Arkansas and that she is using the pseudonym Jane Doe. FPS
to this Court’s jurisdiction and venue, for which no affirmative response is required. To
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
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.
further states that it also determined that the requested records were personnel records
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
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.
15. FPS adopts and reasserts all responses and denials contained in
2
16. The allegations in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Complaint state conclusions
required, FPS denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 and denies that Plaintiff is entitled
required, FPS denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 and denies that Plaintiff is entitled
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
25. FPS admits that the termination of the Superintendent is a matter of public
and affirmatively states that it has protected Plaintiff’s personal privacy and will continue
inflammatory information that “touches on the intimate details” of Plaintiff’s life and will
employment or friends” are matters of opinion and as such, are denied. FPS denies the
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.
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.
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
indispensable parties.
Rules of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, failure to state facts upon which
dismissed with prejudice and that FPS be awarded all fees and costs associated with
the matter.
Respectfully submitted,
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
236739