Page 1

TAMRA FACCIOLA 1969 EAST BROADWAY ROAD SUITE 5 TEMPE, ARIZONA 85282 480-456-4497 PHONE tfacciola@arizlaw.biz

April 24, 2012 Corrections Corporation of America Attention Ms. Susan Lindsey, Esq. General Counsel for Labor and Employment 10 Burton Hills Blvd. Nashville, TN 37215-6105 Re:

McDonald adv CCA 9th Circuit Appeal/ Anticipated Ruling

Dear Ms. Lindsey: As you know, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in this case, appealing Judge Teilberg’s granting of CCA’s second motion for summary judgment, is expected soon. It occurs to me that an adverse ruling against CCA will certainly have a negative impact that could easily be avoided. While our firm has not made an appearance in the 9th Circuit appeal, we did represent Mr. McDonald at the district court level and he has requested that we assist him in making this offer to your client. Mr. McDonald would like to propose the following: That CCA and Mr. McDonald participate in a binding mediation prior to the 9th Circuit’s Ruling being issued. While Mr. McDonald is committed to re-litigating his case when the appeals court reverses the district court judge’s ruling, he also sees the value in settlement and is willing to enter into a confidential mediation agreement to resolve this matter prior to CCA receiving an adverse ruling. Mr. McDonald’s attempts at obtaining full time employment post termination from CCA have continued to be a challenge. Employers who contacted CCA for a reference


didn’t hire him; those employers who did not speak with CCA hired him. CCA’s negative comments cost him several opportunities. When the appeal is granted and this case resumes for trial, Mr. McDonald will request he be permitted to submit new evidence to prove CCA’s defamation of his good name and to amend his complaint to include Blacklisting pursuant to Arizona law because of CCA’s continuous roadblocks to his employment in the Corrections field. The cost to CCA of an adverse decision from the 9th Circuit, the negative precedent, and the potential exposure to punitive damages on the defamation claim, should provide a strong basis in support of Mr. McDonald’s offer to mediate this matter prior to the issuance of the ruling. We would suggest that the parties mutually select a private mediator, costs to be shared between the parties. Further, your client may not be aware that Mr. McDonald, over the past few years, has been working diligently as a public servant in the State of Arizona and is well acquainted with several influential public policy makers. Mr. McDonald would prefer, in his role as public servant, to work with CCA to increase the effectiveness of the state’s prison system to one that is beneficial to the citizens of Arizona rather than to be placed in a position where CCA’s dedication to the public good is called into question. Given that his case has gone on for several years, a good faith acceptance to mediation by CCA would go a long way to assure such dedication to the public good. I would appreciate a response from you within ten days from the date of this letter. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours,

Tamra Facciola TF/hs CC: Robert McDonald

McDonald adv CCA9th Circuit Appeal/ Anticipated Ruling  

9th Circuit Appeal/ Anticipated Ruling

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you