May 20, 2024


Equality opinion

Lawyer sues condition court docket officials for loss of deal that he ties to criticism of state legislator

Documents LAWSUIT: More than the decline of his work for the administrative business office of the courts.

Casey Copeland, a Prairie Grove attorney, has filed a federal lawsuit towards two officers of the point out Supreme Court’s administrative office of the courts for terminating his contract to represent little ones in dependency-neglect cases.

He alleges he lost the do the job soon following he’d created state Rep. Charlene Fite, the Van Buren Republican, privately to object to her sponsorship of legislation to prohibit wellbeing care for transgender youngsters. Fite is Copeland’s point out agent.

The match names Marty Sullivan, director of the administrative workplace of the courts, and Stasia Burk McDonald, director of the office’s dependency-neglect legal professional advert litem software. McDonald, who functions below Sullivan, terminated the deal

In a declaration submitted with the lawsuit,  Copeland reported he’d been employed or worked beneath agreement with the court docket place of work on dependency-neglect instances due to the fact 2012 and even a short while ago had his do the job expanded. He was terminated on April 1 though functioning on a contract that was to past as a result of June 30. He also signifies young children in domestic situations by appointment of judges and is paid through the administrative business, but not under condition contract. He explained he’d never ever received any negative remarks about his operate.

The deal was terminated about 48 several hours after he wrote an e-mail to Fite on March 30 on his individual e mail account about her sponsorship of HB 1570, the transgender care prohibition that became regulation just after an override of Governor Hutchinson’s veto. Copeland understood Fite as extra than his point out agent. He’d opposed her election in 2018 as the Democratic Libertarian nominee. He had created Fite just before, in 2019, about recommended legislation with no sick implications. This time was unique. From the declaration:


As a result of subsequent Liberty of Information and facts Act requests, Copeland observed that Fite had sent his electronic mail to a team lawyer to Sullivan, and to the assistant director of the ad litem software, Janet Bledsoe, with the comment “should advertisement litem facts be on email of this mother nature.” Copeland’s email recognized him as an advert litem lawyer and bundled his business office of the courts’ e-mail handle in the “signature block” portion of the e-mail. Much less than two hours immediately after he’d despatched his email to Fite, Sullivan emailed five some others on the staff with the query, “Sam, terminate deal?”

Copeland mentioned he was made available no explanation and a request for an exit interview was declined. He mentioned he’d utilised the advertisement litem title and AOC tackle in a letter to Fite in 2019 with no objection from her or the workplace. In that scenario, he was producing a recommendation about laws and she forwarded it to the office environment of the courts. Copeland also has discovered, even so, that Fite experienced composed in 2020 to Janet Bledsoe, assistant director of the advertisement litem system, to say that polling indicated Copeland was “pulling” votes from her. Fite requested that the interaction be retained confidential.

The loss of the deal has expense Copeland perform and money, he reported.

Primarily based on the timing of the termination and the communications uncovered in the FOI, Copeland concluded the termination by McDonald “was carried out at the behest of Defendant Sullivan and instigated by Representative Fite in retaliation for my adverse email to her on an challenge of public problem about her actions as my state consultant as sponsor for HB 1570.”

The lawsuit says Copeland’s 1st Amendment legal rights had been violated by being punished by the state for speaking with his legislator about a matter of public problem. It seeks an injunction to avert the office environment of the courts from hiring a replacement for Copeland and an buy that he be reinstated and renewed for an additional 12 months.

The lawsuit was filed on Copeland’s behalf by the ACLU of Arkansas, which is currently demanding the constitutionality of the transgender treatment ban legislation in one more federal lawsuit.

The lawsuit indicates the state predicted to be sued.

Plaintiff has hardly ever been notified by both Defendant nor any AOC administrator, nor is he informed, of any complaint or issue about his contractual performance or his capacity to present the contracted-for solutions.  Irrespective of inquiring for an clarification for the termination, he in no way been given one particular.

Nevertheless, a textual content from Jennifer Craun [the courts office’s director of the juvenile justice division], dated April 1, 2021, at about 4:54 P.M. (soon after Plaintiff was notified of his termination) states, “…but could we go ahead and inform him his contract was terminated owing to his use of his ad litem title and AOC internet handle in a political e-mail? That is what we will say if we experience a lawsuit and I imagine it could support easy relations with some others since he is mischaracterizing the fact.”

I’ve sent emails to Sullivan and Fite looking for remark.


UPDATE: email from Fite:

“When staff of condition organizations appear before legislative committees, they are asked to be distinct as to whether or not they are representing their employer, or talking as a personal citizen. The identical should implement in written interaction.

”If you have additional thoughts, I’ll do my finest to react. I have no knowledge as to the good reasons for Mr. Copeland’s getting terminated. I just realized of this termination late today.”

To comply with up issues she reported:

“His e-mail included his title with the AOC, as effectively as numerous other titles owning to do with his courtroom get the job done. I sent it to AOC without comment.

“Again, I do not know the explanations for his termination.”

I have requested her why use of comparable facts in 2019 e mail to her didn’t prompt a comment.

She responded “in that scenario it was suitable for him to use his AOC identification, as he was suggesting modifications in the regulation impacting Ad Litems. “