Former administrative assistant Leslie Bolinder has filed a lawsuit against Emery County and the Career Service Council. She is alleging misconduct by the county last spring/summer surrounding her dismissal from her position. The full time administrative assistant position was eliminated and three part-time commission secretary positions were created. Bolinder had been with the county for 27.5 years at the time her position was eliminated.
Her attorney is Austin B. Egan from Draper. The lawsuit was filed in the Seventh District court. Her complaint and petition has been submitted for judicial review. Emery County has 21 days to respond.
This action involves Bolinder’s appeal of a decision rendered by the Career Service Council. Bolinder’s law suit claims wrongful termination in violation of a clear and substantial public policy, and Bolinder’s claim for deprivation of her due process rights secured by the United States Constitution and Utah Constitution.
Bolinder was employed with the County as an Executive Administrative Assistant from 1989 until her employment was terminated on June 2, 2016.
During her employment with the County, Bolinder was a career service employee, as that term is defined by Utah State law and as defined in the County’s policies and procedures.
Bolinder’s duties and responsibilities included a wide variety of advanced secretarial, general administrative, and executive duties to assist the County Commissioners.
The lawsuit states: At all times during her employment with the County, Bolinder performed her duties and responsibilities in accordance with the terms of her employment, and Bolinder’s performance either met or exceeded the County’s expectations for an Executive Administrative Assistant.
On June 2, 2016, Bolinder was called to a meeting with the County Attorney, two of the County Commissioners, and the County Personnel Director. During the meeting, then County Commissioner Ethan Migliori and County Attorney Michael Olsen informed Bolinder that the County Commissioners had “restructured” the Executive Assistant full time position to three part time Administrative Assistant positions.
The Commissioners did not hold a public meeting to discuss the decision to “restructure” the Executive Assistant position. After the meeting with Bolinder, the County Attorney provided Bolinder with written confirmation, dated June 2, 2016, wherein he stated the “restructuring” of the Executive Assistant position was “effective immediately.”
The lawsuit alleges, the County’s “restructuring” of Bolinder’s position was for the primary purpose of dismissing her from County employment in violation of Emery County Policy. Other department heads, who also directly reported to the Commissioners, were not “reclassified” or removed from employment, further reinforcing the conclusion that the primary purpose of “restructuring” Bolinder’s position was to terminate her employment.
Bolinder then attempted to resolve the dispute regarding the “restructuring” decision informally in accordance with the County’s policies. Despite her attempt to resolve the grievance informally, the County refused to reverse its decision to “restructure” Bolinder’s position.
Bolinder exhausted the County’s grievance process by timely filing a grievance of the County’s “reclassification” of her position on June 10, 2016, and by timely filing a grievance with the County’s Personnel Officer on June 29, 2016.
Bolinder’s grievances were denied and she timely filed an appeal and request for a hearing before the Council on August 16, 2016. The Council initially informed the parties that Bolinder’s appeal would be decided solely on the parties’ written submissions. The parties complied with the Council’s instructions and submitted opening briefs on Oct. 3, 2016, and submitted reply briefs on Oct. 17, 2016. On or about Nov. 15, 2016, the Council notified the parties that Bolinder’s appeal would be decided at a hearing before the Council. The hearing was then scheduled for Dec. 13, 2016. In accordance with the Council’s instructions, the parties submitted pretrial disclosures on Nov. 30, 2016, and submitted objections to pretrial disclosures on Dec. 7, 2016. Additionally, on Dec. 5, 2016, in accordance with the Council’s instructions, the parties submitted their respective summaries of anticipated witness testimony. On Dec. 12, 2016, the Council issued its ruling on the parties’ objections to pretrial disclosures. In its ruling, the Council sustained the County’s objections to anticipated testimony from Teresa Manzanares and D. Scott Crook on the grounds that such testimony would be shielded by the attorney/client privilege.
Bolinder has exhausted any and all administrative remedies and procedures prior to bringing her claim for wrongful termination.
On or about Feb. 15, 2017, Bolinder sent her Amended Notice of Claim to the County, wherein she provided: a statement of facts, nature of claims asserted, and a description of damages known to date.
Accordingly, Bolinder’s Amended Notice of Claim satisfied the requirements set forth in Utah Code Ann. Bolinder’s lawsuit states: The County’s alleged unlawful termination of Bolinder’s employment has caused her to suffer lost wages, lost retirement and other employment benefits, harm to her future earning capacity, consequential losses, severe emotional distress, and other damages which will be proven at trial according to Bolinder’s lawyer.
As a career service employee of the County Bolinder had a substantive due process right not to be terminated for arbitrary or capricious reasons. According to Bolinder on or about June 2, 2016, the County Commissioners, the County Attorney, and the County Personnel Director met, in private and without notice to the public, and decided to terminate Bolinder’s employment under the guise of “reclassification.”
The County decision to terminate Ms. Bolinders employment through reclassification was arbitrary and/or capricious and was in violation of the County’s own policies. The County’s decision to terminate Bolinder’s employment through “reclassification” was made prior to any public meeting listing the matter for consideration without any public majority vote of the County Commissioners; in private and without prior notice to Bolinder or the public without following the pre-termination procedures in Title 5 of the County’s Policies; and prior to granting Ms. Bolinder a hearing or any other opportunity to be heard.
At the meeting on June 2, 2016, Commissioner Migliori told Bolinder the decision to “reclassify” her position had already been made, and it was “effective immediately. This was confirmed, in writing, in a letter dated June 2, 2016, signed by County Attorney Olsen.
Bolinder’s due process rights included the right to a fair and impartial hearing to challenge the County’s allegations against her, and to present her own evidence and testimony in opposition to the County’s allegations.
The lawsuit states: For the reasons set forth herein, the hearing before the Council was neither fair nor impartial. Accordingly, the County deprived Bolinder of her due process rights.
On or about Sept. 13, 2016, the County acknowledged to Bolinder that County Attorney Michael Olsen was “a witness to some events” involving Bolinder’s grievance and the appeals thereof.
Despite the County’s open confirmation that Mr. Olsen was a witness to relevant events, the County objected to Mr. Olsen being called as a witness at the hearing before the Council.
The Council sustained the County’s objection, thereby depriving Bolinder of her right to call Mr. Olsen as a witness and eliciting testimony relevant to the circumstances surrounding the termination of her employment. Mr. Olsen’s testimony was material to the outcome of the hearing. Mr. Olsen had direct communications with Bolinder regarding her protected activity, he wrote the letter notifying Bolinder that her employment was “restructured” effective immediately,” and he had personal knowledge of non privileged communications with the County Commissioners regarding the reasons and motivations underlying the Commissioners’ decision to terminate Bolinder’s employment.
In September 2016, Mr. Olsen and County Personnel Directory Mary Huntington (who was another adverse witness in Bolinder’s appeal hearing before the Council), met with the Council to discuss the procedure for resolving Bolinder’s appeal. Neither Bolinder nor her counsel were present for this meeting, and were not notified of the meeting.
On or about Sept. 12, 2016, on behalf of the County, Mr. Olsen retained the services of Kathryn Steffey from the law firm of Smith Hartvigsen,LLC to represent the Council.
On that same day, Mr. Olsen sent an email to Ms. Steffey describing what he claimed to be the procedure for hearing Bolinder’s appeal and what he viewed as the standard of review for the appeal. Bolinder’s counsel was not copied on that email.
In other words, Mr. Olsen a representative of the County, and an adverse witness in Bolinder’s appeal engaged in exparte communication with Ms. Steffey, who advised the Council in relation to Ms. Bolinder’s appeal.
In this exparte communication, Mr. Olsen attempted to dictate the procedures and the standard of review surrounding Ms. Bolinder’s appeal.
Mr. Olsen’s exparte contacts with Ms. Steffey continued in October 2016. The County has improperly redacted communications between Mr. Olsen and Ms. Steffey in this time frame, claiming that the communications were “privileged”.
Upon obtaining unredacted copies of these communications, Bolinder believes they will demonstrate further ex parte communications that tainted the integrity and/or impartiality of the hearing. The assertion of privilege was improper; Ms. Steffey’s client was the Council; it was not the County, and it certainly was not Mr. Olsen himself. In summation the lawsuit states the County has improperly asserted a privilege to shield Mr. Olsen’s ex parte communications with Ms. Steffey.
On June 14, 2016, and again on Aug. 2, 2016, Bolinder sent GRAMA requests to the County wherein she requested documents containing communications between and among the Commissioners and other individuals with knowledge of facts relevant to Bolinder’s grievances.
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Bolinder demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury. Bolinder is requesting in her lawsuit; judgment from the Court as follows: A judgment reversing and vacating the Council’s ruling. A judgment against the County for Bolinder’s lost wages, lost retirement benefits, and lost employment benefits in an amount to be determined at trial.
A judgment ordering the County to reinstate Bolinder in a comparable position of County employment, with a comparable rate of pay and comparable employment benefits; In lieu of reinstatement, an award of future wages and all consequential losses, specifically including retirement benefits through Utah Retirement Systems, in amount to be proven at trial; Damages to compensate Bolinder for her emotional distress; A judgment awarding Bolinder her reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs; Prejudgment and post judgment interest, as applicable, at the highest lawful rate and such further and additional legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate. This lawsuit was filed on April 24.
In the May 2 commission meeting the county commissioners enacted a resolution which dictates how career service employees will be classified in the future.
As of May 2, any career service positions that become vacant will be replaced with an at-will employee. Positions where a department head retires or resigns will not be rehired as a career service employee.
Editors Note: A phone call to the county attorney’s office to get a statement from the county has not been returned at press time.
[dfads params='groups=4969&limit=1&orderby=random']
[dfads params='groups=1745&limit=1&orderby=random']