 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Honan v. County of Cottonwood8/30/2005
Appellant David Honan brought claims alleging violation of the Minnesota Constitution, defamation, and violations of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and Open Meeting Law against the following respondents: (1) the County of Cottonwood and five of its current and former commissioners (the county); (2) Brian T. Pierce, a former assistant county attorney (Pierce); and (3) Scott T. Anderson, who served as legal counsel for the county board, and his law firm, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. (Anderson). Honan, who served a term as Cottonwood County Attorney after he defeated the incumbent in a write-in election, claims that respondents acted wrongfully during an investigation into a discrimination complaint brought by one of his former employees and in publicizing the results of that investigation during a county board meeting.
The district court granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all claims against Pierce and Anderson, and most of the claims against the county. The only claims that remain against the county allege breach of contract (Count II) and violation of the data practices act and open meeting law (Counts V & VI). Because the district court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings with respect to Counts I (violation of state constitution), III (defamation against Pierce), V (violation of open meeting law against Anderson), and VI (violation of data practices act against Anderson), we affirm dismissal of those claims. But because the district court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings with respect to Count IV (defamation against the county and Anderson), we reverse the dismissal of that claim and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS
In 1997, Honan was hired as an Assistant Cottonwood County Attorney. He was discharged from his position in September 1998. Honan claims that he was discharged for challenging the actions of a county agency and its director, who was a "close political ally" of the county board. In October 1998, just weeks before the general election, Honan decided to run as a write-in candidate against the incumbent county attorney, who was strongly supported by the county board and its commissioners. In November 1998, the voters of the county elected Honan as their county attorney.
Honan alleges that immediately after the election, respondent Anderson "reached an agreement" with the county board and was "the architect of various schemes designed to ruin Honan and/or force him to resign." In particular, Honan alleges that the board retaliated against him by reducing his staff and cutting his salary.
In late 1999, after one of Honan's employees filed a complaint against him alleging marital discrimination, the board hired attorney Michelle Soldo to conduct an investigation. Honan alleges that Soldo "strategized" with Anderson and that the county prevented him from gaining access to information collected in connection with Soldo's investigation.
Respondent Pierce, who was hired by Honan and was an assistant county attorney at the time of Soldo's investigation, was initially one of Honan's supporters. At some point, though, Pierce began to voice concerns about Honan. In January 2000, Pierce resigned. According to Honan, Pierce agreed to "align" himself with the board against Honan. Pierce filed a complaint against Honan claiming that Honan had "intimidated and retaliated against [Pierce] for cooperating with Soldo's investigation." Honan claims that Pierce's complaint "was used as a pretext for yet another 'investigation' of Honan."
Honan claims that the county "repeatedly refused to allow access to the complaints filed against him[,] to statements obtained
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|