Agreement reached in Hall vs. Jarvis lawsuit

Related Photos

KrisAnne Hall. Courtesy photo
Third Circuit State Attorney Skip Jarvis. File photo

Discussion

July 7, 2011

Stephenie Livingston Suwannee Democrat The Suwannee Democrat Fri Jul 08, 2011, 08:30 AM EDT

Live Oak — The often heated battle that was the lawsuit against Third Circuit State Attorney Robert L. “Skip” Jarvis Jr. brought on by his former Assistant State Attorney, KrisAnne Hall, has ended in apparent mediation.

Hall, a former prosecutor for the Third Circuit working out of Hamilton County, brought the lawsuit against Jarvis last year after she said she was fired by him for speaking at public events such as Tea Party meetings. Jarvis said Hall left voluntarily.

Hall left the state's attorney in May 2010 and filed a civil lawsuit shortly after citing her First Amendment rights had been violated.

In a mutual statement by Hall and Jarvis released July 7, Jarvis agreed to pay a portion of Hall’s attorney fees, as long as Hall promises to drop the lawsuit against Jarvis and to fulfill certain other obligations - which were not disclosed.

Hall and Jarvis attended a court ordered mediation on July 5 in an attempt to resolve the case without a court ruling or a jury verdict.

“We understand that the cost of defending this lawsuit is and remains substantial and is being funded by Florida taxpayers,” they said in a mutual statement.

The statement said that, despite the settlement, Hall still strongly believes she was simply exercising her First Amendment right to free speech when she spoke at political group functions on issues she felt were of public concern that are subject to serious debate.

Moreover, as Hall’s boss, Jarvis remains adamant that he had the authority to ask Hall to limit her speech due to complaints that he received from the public and his belief that her opinions were being associated with his office. He desired to “preserve the essential perception of neutrality of his office while at the same time preventing potential negative impact on his office,” stated the statement.

According to the mutual statement, both parties agree that government employees have an interest in commenting on public issues, but that they also agree a government entity, such as the state’s attorney's office, needs a significant degree of control over public behavior of its employees.

Hall said she is prohibited by conditions of the settlement from discussing or commenting on any aspect of it, but told the Democrat she is “very pleased”.

Both sides agreed that the issues surrounding the case would be complex and unpredictable in the courts.

In the settlement, the state’s attorney’s office agreed to pay a portion of Hall’s “reasonable” attorney fees in exchange for her promise to “voluntarily dismiss her lawsuit against the SAO and fulfill certain other obligations.”

It’s not clear what those other obligations are.

The statement called the settlement “an effort to avoid expending additional taxpayer dollars over this debate.”

Jarvis is bound by a gag order and could only say that he is "pleased" with the mutual statement.

Here is the full statement

Krisanne Hall v. Robert L. “Skip” Jarvis, Jr., State Attorney

Case no. 3:10-cv-00443-RBD-TEM

U. S. District Court, Middle District, Jacksonville Division

MUTUAL STATEMENT

   On July 5, 2011, we, KrisAnne Hall and Skip Jarvis, attended a court ordered mediation in an attempt to resolve the case without a court ruling or a jury verdict. We understand that the cost of defending this lawsuit is and remains substantial and is being funded by Florida taxpayers.

   This case presents issues which are vitally important to the parties. These issues involve inherent conflicts which require careful balancing between the First Amendment rights of public employees and the acknowledged rights of public agencies to maintain the integrity and efficiency of their offices.

   Ms. Hall strongly believes that she was exercising her right to free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and United States Supreme Court precedent when she spoke at certain political groups’ functions on issues she felt were of public concern that are subject to serious debate.

   Mr. Jarvis strongly believes that he, as the elected State Attorney, had the authority to ask her to limit her speech because of complaints he was receiving about her speech and his belief that she was associating her ideas to the State Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial Circuit (“SAO”). He desired to preserve the essential perception of neutrality of his office while at the same time preventing potential negative impact on his office. Mr. Jarvis, therefore, believed that he gave Ms. Hall an option to remain a State prosecutor under such circumstances and that he was not infringing on her First Amendment rights, but was protecting the integrity of the SAO.

   We both agree that government employees have an interest in commenting upon matters of public concern. We also agree that the SAO has an interest in promoting the efficiency of public services, such as prosecuting criminals, it performs through its employees. We further agree that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that a government employer, like the SAO, needs a significant degree of control over its employees’ words and actions and that when a private citizen enters government service, the citizen must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom.

   The legal issues involved in this case are important to both parties, but we agree that the issues are complex and unpredictable in the courts. In an effort to avoid expending additional taxpayer dollars over this debate, the SAO has agreed to pay a portion of Ms. Hall’s reasonable attorney fees in exchange for Ms. Hall’s promise to voluntarily dismiss her lawsuit against the SAO and fulfill certain other obligations.