You may have seen a video from November 2025 where a woman in a local McDonald’s yells at a man who appears to be developmentally disabled. The woman is now suing the person who took the video, and others. Read more below and view the video and lawsuit.

THE STORY:

A Saline County woman has filed a lawsuit claiming a viral TikTok video from a dispute at a McDonald’s location in Bryant, Arkansas, cost her job and led to harassment.

Amber Ward filed the civil complaint in Saline County Circuit Court on February 24, 2026, naming Leighton Withers, Sierria Rockett, and 10 other “John Doe” unidentified individuals as defendants.

According to the lawsuit, Ward was involved in a dispute at a McDonald’s in Bryant on October 31, 2025. The complaint alleges that Withers recorded the incident without Ward’s knowledge, edited the footage to portray her negatively, and posted it to TikTok on November 1, 2025.

The lawsuit claims the video went viral, generating thousands of views and hundreds of comments. Ward alleges the publicity resulted in the loss of her job with the Bryant School District, as well as the loss of another employment opportunity, and she states she is facing difficulty securing new work.

Ward further alleges that Rockett posted her phone number in the video’s comment section, which led to harassing and threatening calls and texts. The complaint states Ward ultimately changed her phone number and took additional measures for her safety.

The lawsuit asserts claims including “false light” against Withers and “outrage,” or intentional infliction of emotional distress, against Rockett. Ward is seeking damages, punitive damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees.

The defendants have not yet filed responses in the case.

THE VIDEO:

@l8mackenzieKaren in the wild, Benton, Arkansas 10/31♬ original sound – Leight

Link to video: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZThgTu2XF/

THE LAWSUIT:

Open the individual images to read the document, or read the full text below.

FILED
SALINE COUNTY
CIRCUIT CLERK
2026 FEB 24 AM11:46
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SALINE COUNTY, ARKANSAS
Civil Division

AMBER WARD,
Plaintiff

VS.

LEIGHTON WITHERS, SIERRIA
ROCKETT and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants

Case No. 63CV-26-444-2

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff Amber Ward by and through her attorney, Nobles

Law Firm, PLLC, and for her Complaint Defendants Leighton Withers, Sierria

Rockett and John Does 1-10 states that:

I. Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

Plaintiff is a resident of Saline County, Ark.

Defendants Leighton Withers and Sierria Rockett – to the best of Plaintiffs

knowledge, information and belief – are residents of Saline County, Arkansas.

Defendants John Does 1-10 shall be identified and named as parties during the

course of this litigation.

The events complained of herein took place – at least in part – in Saline

County, Arkansas.

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter to this action.

Venue properly lies before this Court.

II. Facts

On Oct. 31, 2025, the Plaintiff had a dispute with a employee at the

McDonald’s in Bryant, Ark. regarding her order.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendant Leighton Withers was present and filmed

the dispute.

Defendant Leighton Withers then edited the incident to portray Plaintiff in the

worst light possible (please see https://tinyurl.com/45be9p53).

Defendant Leighton Withers then posted said video on her TikTok account,

identified as “@l8withers” (please see attached Exhibit “A”).

Defendant Leighton Withers has since changed her TikTok account to

“@l8mackenzie”

after she was contacted by the Plaintiff about removing the video,

but the video remains please see attached Exhibit “B’).

12. Said video went “viral,” costing Plaintiff her job with the Bryant School

District, directly resulting in her losing a job for which she had been accepted and

hampering her ability to find new employment.

Meanwhile, Defendant Sierria Rockett posted Plaintiffs phone number in the

comments section below the video – apparently as an act of retaliation – which

resulted in harassing phone calls to the Plaintiff.

III. Cause of Action – False Light

In order to sustain a false light claim, Plaintiff must establish two elements – (1)

that the false light in which (s)he was placed by the publicity would be highly

offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) that the defendant knew, or acted in reckless

disregard of, the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the

plaintiff would be placed. Pingatore 1. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2017 Ark. App. 459, 10, 530

S.W.3d 372, 379 (2017).

In the case at hand, Defendant Leighton Withers posted a video that she knew

would be highly publicized and offensive to a reasonable person as evidenced by the

intense criticism the Plaintiff has received through over 700 responses to said video,

which has been viewed over 153,000 times (please see attached Exhibit “C” for a

sample of responses).

Defendant Leighton Withers knew or acted in reckless disregard of the falsity

of the publicized matter and the false light in which Plaintiff would be placed.

Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant Leighton Withers’ actions in an

amount to be proven at trial and should be compensated therefore.

As Defendant Leighton Withers intentionally pursued a course of conduct for

the express purpose of causing damage to the Plaintiff, she should be assessed

punitive damages in an amount unrestricted by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-55-208.

IV. Cause of Action – Outrage

Defendant Sierria Rockett – to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, information

and belief – posted Plaintiffs phone number online in the aforementioned comment

section for the express purpose of causing harassment and embarrassment to the

Plaintiff (please see attached Exhibit “D”).

Such behavior damaged Plaintiff as she has received several threatening texts

and phone calls as the direct result of Defendant Sierria Rockett’s actions.

To establish an outrage case, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that 1) the actor

intended to inflict emotional distress or knew or should have known that emotional

distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) the conduct was “extreme and

outrageous,” was “beyond all possible bounds of decency,” and was “utterly

intolerable in a civilized community”; (3) the actions of the defendant were the cause

of the plaintiff’s distress; and (4) the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was

so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Crockett v. Essex,

341 Ark. 558, 563, 19 S. W.3d 585, 589 (2000).

Those elements ate in place due to the harassing and threatening nature of the

phone calls and texts received by Plaintiff as the result of Defendant Sierria Rockett

posting her phone number online when said Defendant knew full well what the result

of that action would be.

Plaintiff has suffered damage in that she has had to change phone numbers as a

result of Defendant’s actions and has taken measures for her own safety as a result of

the threatening nature of the communications resulting from Defendant’s actions.

As Defendant Siertia Rockett intentionally pursued a course of conduct for the

express purpose of causing damage to the Plaintiff, she should be assessed punitive

damages in an amount unrestricted by Ark. Code Ann. $ 16-55-208.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that her Complaint against Defendants is

granted as set forth herein; for court costs; for attorney’s fees; and for all other relief

to which she is or may prove herself entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,
Amber Ward

By:
Ethan C. Nobles
Nobles Law Firm, PLIC
210 W. Sevier St.
Benton, AR 72019
Tel: (501) 794-9742
Fax:
(501)641-7057
[email protected]
Arkansas Bar #95048

---

•