What grounds did Charlotte chief have to sue? Not much, one expert said.
Answers remain scarce following reports of a mysterious six-figure payment from the Charlotte City Council to the police chief.
Here’s a look at legal questions around how Charlotte leaders handled the issue.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Chief Johnny Jennings has reportedly been promised a large sum of money to settle his threatened but never filed lawsuit against the city. Charlotte’s leaders haven’t said much or released public records.
Council members in a closed session April 28 voted on “settling” the threatened lawsuit.
The Charlotte Observer on Monday, May 5, requested public records from the city related to the deal. No records have been provided yet in response.
On Saturday, City Council member Tiawana Brown posted a Facebook comment saying the amount was $300,000, but that number has not been confirmed. She did not respond to a request for details.
Why would Jennings sue the city?
Based on reports from WSOC and WFAE, it appears that Jennings threatened to sue over texts sent to him in 2024 by Tariq Bokhari, then a member of the City Council.
Jennings and Bokhari were in a heated policy disagreement over what type of bulletproof vests should be available to CMPD officers. Bokhari texted Jennings to tell him he planned on “hammering” him in the press and political circles.
He texted Jennings to say he would “not stop and it will cripple your legacy you’ve worked so hard for.“ He also wrote: “You have 36 hours to call it all off by compromising in some small way. Otherwise it’s in God’s hands.”
Jennings and Bokhari, now a Trump administration official, have declined to comment.
What grounds did Jennings potentially have for a lawsuit?
Based on limited information currently available, Jennings could have tried to sue on civil allegations of defamation or emotional harm, University of North Carolina School of Law professor Rick Su told The Charlotte Observer in an email.
“I suspect that the city was worried more about the politics of such a lawsuit rather than the law?” Su wrote.
In order for a defamation suit to be legitimate, false statements must be published to a third party and have caused injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.
In the case of a public figure like Jennings, he would need to prove “actual malice.”
Su said he saw nothing in current news reports to suggest that Bokhari’s statements “would be knowingly false and done purely out of malice.”
“It appeared to me a disagreement on policy matters,” Su wrote in his email, “albeit a particular aggressive disagreement.”
Bokhari’s text messages also were not public comments, Su wrote, and they were seemingly made public through news reports.
Su also questioned whether Bokhari intended to cause emotional harm.
WFAE published contents of the text messages in November, citing a public records request to the city.
Can elected officials vote to approve settlements in closed session?
Yes. North Carolina statutes say public bodies can meet in closed session “to preserve the attorney-client privilege.” They must first vote publicly on a motion saying the purpose of the closed session.
And once in closed session, they’re required to stick to the topic at hand.
Does the law require the settlement amount to be made public?
Yes. Those same statutes say any of the terms of the council’s settlements (other than malpractice settlements) “shall be reported to the public body and entered into its minutes as soon as possible within a reasonable time after the settlement is concluded.”
“Given Charlotte’s near failure to keep minutes of their meetings in a timely fashion, who knows when that will occur,” attorney Mike Tadych, who specializes in First Amendment law and has represented McClatchy journalists in court, wrote in an email to the Observer.
The city of Charlotte has for years struggled to fill public records requests, the Observer reported last year.
Did the council have to meet in closed session?
No. North Carolina’s open meetings law says public bodies may meet in closed session to discuss certain topics like personnel performance or economic development deals. But that’s discretionary.
If the Charlotte City Council had wanted to, they could have had a public discussion about Jennings’ concerns and how much money they felt he was entitled to.
Is it a crime to reveal what was said in a closed session?
Apparently not. Anthony Fox, the interim city attorney, suggested during the city’s Wednesday, May 7 news conference that a public official who shares information from a closed session could face criminal sanctions.
But on Friday, the city issued a statement of clarification from Fox: A criminal sanction is possible for someone who shares information from a personnel file under the state’s Personnel Privacy Act.
Staff writers Mary Ramsey and Joe Marusak contributed.
This is a developing story and may be updated.
This story was originally published May 12, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
