MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (WGNS)- The Rutherford County Library System Board of Directors has unanimously approved hiring an attorney to defend against a federal discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit filed by former library director Luanne James.

The decision came during a special called meeting Monday, Oct. 12, as the board considered its legal response to the lawsuit filed Sept. 23. After approximately an hour of deliberation, board members voted to hire attorney Rowan Leathers III, following a recommendation from the library system's insurance company.

The board also approved paying a $5,000 insurance deductible associated with its legal defense.

Lawsuit Stems From Controversial Library Book Decision

The lawsuit follows James' termination on March 30, when the library board voted 8-3 to remove her as director after she refused to relocate more than 100 books containing LGBTQ+ themes from children's and young adult sections to the adult section.

James has alleged that her firing was retaliatory and violated her constitutional rights, including protections under the First Amendment. She maintains that the board's instructions amounted to censorship and that her refusal to comply led to her termination.

Her federal lawsuit names the Rutherford County Library System, its board of directors and individual board members involved in her dismissal.

James is seeking financial compensation and court intervention to prevent what she describes as discrimination, retaliation and censorship.

The allegations remain the subject of pending federal litigation and have not been established by a court.

Residents Speak on Both Sides of the Controversy

Before the board entered deliberations Monday, three residents addressed members during public comment. Two criticized the decision to terminate James, while one expressed support for the board's actions.

Tatiana Silvas, a teacher at Stewarts Creek High School, spoke against the relocation of the books and criticized board members for proceeding despite previous warnings about potential legal consequences.

"I believe I stated on at least seven separate occasions that this library board would face legal repercussions for their various illegal and unconstitutional actions," Silvas said. "In short, I told you so."

Rutherford County resident Ed Schmidt defended the board's decision, arguing that certain materials should not be accessible to younger children.

"I want to thank the board by taking the logical and valid position of taking certain material off the shelves that would confuse little kids," Schmidt said. "Please don't push heavily sexualized material on young kids. It's not good for the kids, and it's not good for the community."

Schmidt also disputed the argument that the controversy involved a First Amendment violation, comparing the lawsuit to "throwing spaghetti against the wall."

Former Employees and Supporters Raise Concerns

Several people attending Monday's meeting wore purple shirts in support of James, provided by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Rutherford County Library Alliance.

Among those present was Hope Lafever, a former library system employee who worked under James before her dismissal.

Lafever criticized the board's handling of the controversy, arguing that members had been warned about the possibility of litigation and its potential financial consequences for local taxpayers.

"They were warned many, many times over that this was going to happen, and it's kind of like they're playing dumbfounded right now," Lafever said. "They need to look at the facts and understand that there are consequences to actions that cost us, as Murfreesboro and Rutherford County residents, taxpayer money."

The controversy has attracted attention beyond Rutherford County, becoming part of a broader debate over library collections, parental oversight and First Amendment protections.

What's Next?

The Rutherford County Library System Board of Directors is scheduled to hold its next regular meeting on Monday, Oct. 19, at 5 p.m. at the Rutherford County Courthouse.

Meanwhile, the federal lawsuit will continue through the legal process, with the newly hired attorney representing the defendants as they respond to James' allegations.

The case could determine whether the board's actions violated federal protections and what remedies, if any, James may be entitled to receive.