A lawsuit between Arkansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Karen Baker and court employees is set to go forward.
The suit is about Baker's alleged unprofessional conduct. Baker is said to have harassed and retaliated against employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a group of non-political staffers who help with day-to-day court business.
Last year, the AOC conducted a human resources investigation into her behavior. In January, Baker attempted to fire ten court employees. This was stopped by the high court in a case she is now attempting to throw out.
Her motion referenced the HR report against Baker, but did not attach the document. Filed by her attorney Tom Mars, it said:
“The evidence is insufficient to support a finding of “harassment,” by any definition.”
Justices said this claim cannot be verified without the document. They rejected her request Thursday.
“It is impossible to conduct the review that Chief Justice Baker seeks,” the two-page ruling said. Baker has been given a deadline of next Tuesday to submit the report.
If Baker does not comply, AOC Executive Director Marty Sullivan is asked to turn in the report by Friday.
A footnote specifies that “no extensions to these deadlines will be entertained.”
A longstanding conflict
In December, Baker was seen on camera entering the office of Marty Sullivan, the court office executive director. Arkansas Business first reported she left his office “disheveled.” Baker also allegedly asked Supreme Court Police Chief Pete Hollingsworth to delete the footage of her entering Sullivan's office.
In the voicemail, she told Hollingsworth the footage “better not” be “going around.” Though, the footage is publicly accessible under Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.
In January, almost immediately after she was sworn in, Baker attempted to fire ten court employees including Sullivan and Hollingsworth. She was stopped by fellow justices, who called the terminations “retaliatory" in a ruling.
“The Chief Justice did not notify—let alone consult—the court before attempting to unilaterally fire these long-tenured court employees.”
The ruling said these employees serve the whole court and not just one person. This assertion is backed up by clear language in the Arkansas Constitution. Amendment 80 says the Administrative Office of the Courts director “shall hold office at the pleasure of the Supreme Court.”
In late January, Baker said she interpreted the stance to mean just the chief justice.
This came during a roughly three-hour meeting of the high court. During the meeting, justices took pains to explain to her the plain language of the law. Baker equivocated, providing several explanations for her legal interpretation. First, she said she was “administering the functions of the court.” Then, she said she was not prepared to answer their questions.
Toward the end of the meeting, Baker said she was following the “custom and practice” of the court. Though, other justices insisted the chief justice had never before done a unilateral termination of court employees.
Later in the meeting, Baker attempted to prevent the court from making regular business motions but was overruled by other justices.
About a week later, Baker was called to testify at a meeting of the House Judiciary committee. When Rep. Matthew Shepherd, R-El Dorado, asked what was “going on” at the Supreme Court, Baker falsely said Justice Nicholas Bronni recusing “from all our criminal cases" had caused them to have a “rough start.”
The next day, Bronni wrote a letter to the committee clarifying this as an untrue statement.
Justice Courtney Hudson did not participate in the order requiring Baker to turn over the HR report.
