Spencer, Iowa · Saturday, March 13, 2010
[Spencer Daily Reporter nameplate] Fog ~ 35°F  
Dense Fog Advisory
Print Email link Respond to editor Read comments (14) Share link

County, former employee settle federal lawsuit

Thursday, March 5, 2009
A former Clay County employee will receive a $105,000 settlement from the county's insurance provider to settle a dispute over her 2007 dismissal.

Sally L. Becker, a former employee in the Clay County Treasurer's and Recorder's offices, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the county on Dec. 27, 2007, at the U.S. District Courthouse in Sioux City.

The sides reached an agreement following a 7.5 hour mediation session before a federal magistrate on Feb. 25.

"It was a reasonable settlement for both parties," Becker's attorney, John Roehrick of the Roehrick Law Firm in Des Moines said.

Attorneys were reluctant to comment because the parties have not officially signed off on the settlement agreement.

"It will be a full and complete release against all claims against all county officials and Clay County," said Storm Lake attorney Phil Redenbaugh, who represented the county's insurance carrier.

Becker claimed her First Amendment rights to support a political candidate were violated when she was fired from the Clay County Treasurer's Office on Jan. 2, 2007, and a second time, on Aug. 7, 2007, from the Clay County Recorder's Office.

Jan. 2, 2007, was also the day Sandra Geidl was sworn in to start her initial term as Clay County Treasurer. Becker and outgoing Clay County Treasurer Lavon Montgomery backed Geidl's opponent, Bill Zinn, during the 2006 Republican primary and general election.

Becker was told, according to the lawsuit, that Geidl "could not continue the employment of people in her new office who did not support her in her political campaign for that office." Geidl then called on Becker to resign. Becker refused, and was fired on the spot.

After Geidl was sworn in, she told the Clay County Board of Supervisors about the decision to dismiss Becker. As part of her explanation, according to Becker's lawsuit, Geidl told the board Becker "was not a team player" and that Geidl "could not have people that didn't support her" working in the treasurer's office.

"The general rule used to be that, when you come to work for an employer in the state of Iowa, you're an 'at-will' employee," Clay County Attorney Michael Houchins said.

Under those guidelines, employers can terminate an employee under a fairly broad set of circumstances, including incompatibility.

"Clearly, when someone is elected, they have the right to select their deputies and their employees as elected officials as long as it doesn't either violate a contract right with that employee or a public policy with that employee," Houchins said.

At some point between the time she was fired and May 7, 2007, Becker retained an attorney to investigate the legality of her dismissal. She spent time looking for another job, according to her lawsuit.

On May 7, Becker said she received an unsolicited telephone call from Clay County Recorder Shirley Goyette. Goyette, according to the lawsuit, told Becker she had a job opening in the recorder's office and encouraged Becker to apply.

Becker's lawsuit says the former clerk wanted to take the position in the recorder's office but said she cautioned Goyette that she had an attorney working on a potential lawsuit involving Geidl. The recorder's office and the treasurer's office are across from each other in the Clay County Administration Building.

"Goyette assured Becker that any such legal action would have no effect upon her employment at the recorder's office," the lawsuit said.

Goyette, on May 24, 2007, told board member Del Brockshus about her plans to hire Becker.

"Brockshus informed defendant Goyette that Becker could have the recorder's clerk's job if Becker would drop the lawsuit, but that if Becker kept the lawsuit going, the board would not allow Becker to have the recorder's clerk position," the lawsuit said.

Goyette told Becker the other members of the Clay County Board of Supervisors -- Ken Chalstrom, Burlin Matthews, Sylvia Schoer and Linda Swanson -- would have the same position. All five board members received an e-mail from Goyette about Becker's plans for a lawsuit. The board members, along with Goyette and Geidl were named as defendants in the Becker lawsuit.

Becker was still hired, on May 29, 2007, but her standing as a county employee began to change the following month, according to a time line in the court document:

* On June 6, Becker's attorney confirmed that a lawsuit was forthcoming stemming from Becker's dismissal from the county treasurer's office. The confirmation came in writing and was received by the Clay County Board of Supervisors.

* On June 19, Goyette took Becker to a supervisors' meeting for the purpose of introducing Becker as her new employee even though, the lawsuit notes, "Becker was already known to the board members before this time."

* On June 20 and continuing through the end of her employment Becker claims Goyette began a concerted campaign against her, which did not exist during Becker's first three weeks on the job.

Becker accuses Goyette of trying to "isolate, ostracize, harass, intimidate, ridicule, insult, nit-pick, criticize, and demean every aspect" of Becker's work as a clerk in the recorder's office. Becker claims she received similar treatment from other employees and officers in the Clay County Administration Building as well.

Becker said questions about her job were handled with scorn, that she was under "constant surveillance and scrutiny by Goyette" and that she was belittled in front of coworkers and the public.

She also accused Goyette of displaying temper tantrums toward her including slamming books, making excessive noise, acting angry and making negative and taunting comments to Becker. The behavior, Becker said was an attempt by Goyette to spark a "full-blown verbal exchange," which would allow the recorder to fire her clerk instantly for insubordination.

Becker received a written memorandum of job performance containing negative incidents of job performance on July 13. The negative incidents, according to the lawsuit, date back to June 20, 2007, which is the day after she was "introduced" to the supervisors by Goyette.

Brockshus called the recorder's office on Aug. 7. Goyette had the call transfered to the Clay County Auditor's Office. When Goyette returned to her office she summoned Becker to the vault in the recorder's office, handed her an envelope with her paycheck and told her "today is your last day here."

Becker, in her lawsuit, argued that the clerk's position on the treasurer's office does not require a political affiliation with a party or individual. Therefore she argues that she was fired for political activity done outside the scope of her job. The supervisors were named because they did nothing to block what Becker considers to be an unlawful act by Geidl and for conspiring with Goyette to make Becker quit.

"Becker, therefore, has unquestioned rights under the First Amendment to engage in political activity, electorally support those of her choosing running for elective county offices and to actively campaign for the election of Defendant Geidl's political opponent in the November 2006 general election," the lawsuit stated.

Houchins said Clay County is assigned to a risk pool by its insurance provider to decide whether to settle a case or not. The county has no say in the decision.

"It's my understanding the insurance company is adverse to risk and the settlement was a payment just to settle the case and to avoid, potentially, long-term litigation and potentially having to pay attorney fees, court costs and damages," Houchins said.

In the aftermath of the Becker complaint, the county has issued a directive to elected officials and department heads to consult the county attorney's office before firing an employee.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on spencerdailyreporter.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Gee, I wonder what political candidate they were forcing upon her?

-- Posted by fireslayerdad on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, at 9:04 AM

ACCORDING TO THE STORY IT WAS GIEDL (THE CLAY COUNTY TREASURER) BECAUSE MS BECKER DIDNT SUPPORT HER DURING THE ELECTION. I THOUGHT WE HAD THE RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY TO SUPPORT THE CANDIDATE OF OUR CHOICE. GUESS NOT IN CLAY COUNTY IOWA. HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SOME OF THE COUNTIES DIRTY LAUNDRY TO COME TO THE SURFACE. THEY KEEP IT UNDER RAPS PRETTY GOOD USUALLY BUT HAVE PLENTY GOING ON ALL THE TIME. WORKERS NEED RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY TO BE PROTECTED FROM BOSSES WHO FIRE PEOPLE ON A WHIM WITHOUT JUST CAUSE. THANK YOU.

-- Posted by CITIZEN SAM on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, at 10:14 AM

To Ms. Giedl = thanks for being a horrible role model for our young women with your immature behavior.

To Ms. Becker= thanks for being a role model to our young women for taking a stand and claiming your rights as an American citizen !

Spencer, Iowa take a STAND !

-- Posted by B1 on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, at 11:28 AM

This is just another example of a few people in this town that have too much power-perceived or real. I thinks Ms. Becker was very courageous to fight this battle...kudos to her!

-- Posted by SpencerAlumni on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, at 4:49 PM

Too bad for Clay County, we should not have settled. A new administration can choose to keep team players and top performers, or choose to dismiss them. Ms. Geidl had the right to choose her staff just as Mr. Obama has chosen to replace Bush's cabinet members. This just sends a message that it's OK to be a subpar performer and a non team player - you can sue if you get fired. Do you suppose Condi Rice is suing for the cabinet post she lost to Hillary Clinton?

-- Posted by Culture Warrior on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, at 7:40 PM

Okay- so Becker got away with fabricating the truth I am glad she did not get any more money than she did. She was not in any way shape or form let go from her job for political reasons. SIMPLY NOT TRUE PEOPLE. It was NEVER mentioned in her letting go. The truth was that she chose not to support her supervisor Sande Geidl, not because of her party, but because she did not like her - that was always obvious during her employment there. Don't believe everything you read. Shirley Goyette was ridiculous in re-hiring her and tried to cover her reasons after she did so. That is the bottom line people. Who hires someone when they are receiving unemployment from them? Hey there was nothing courageous about Sally Becker except that she lied and got away with it. And furthermore this would have probably never came about if Lavonne Montgomery and the auditor Marge Pitt didn't have so much dilike for the current Treasurer Sande Geidl. Those two made those months before the election pure misery for everyone that worked there. Believe me I know. Those two are the ones that made this whole thing political with Bill Zinn running for office. Lavonne if you disliked Sande Geidl so much why didn't you just appoint Bill Zinn if that is who you wanted to win? It would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money. Sally was no role model, please she was a person that could not take direction and did not like people telling her how to do her job.

This article just proves people are quick to judge without all the information. Unless you were there and saw you don't know.

Happy Trails

-- Posted by happycamper07 on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, at 8:58 PM

Its about time to get rid of Del ,kenny berlin and linda. They are more concerned about wasting tax dollars .Its time to Fire Scot Rhinehartr Now ! And Bradley Brunk Now and John Rosacker Now! If you think $105 thousand was a lot , Just wait until the next lawsuit get settled! And Clay county Tax payers are going to pay that settlement! Its Time To Take Our GOVERNMENT BACK NOW!

-- Posted by savage nation on Thu, Mar 5, 2009, at 9:59 PM

Culture Warrior, your comparison of Ms. Becker's situation and Condi Rice's is flawed. First of all, a new Secretary of State is traditionally chosen with each new President. Each SoS is "hired" with the knowledge that they will be replaced at the end of the President's tenure. No such tradition holds within the Clay Country Administration Building- why would Ms. Becker expect to be told to change her political views or lose her job?

Secondly, the SoS represents the political views and policies of the President and acts as his "agent" when dealing with other entities. I don't know about you, but last time I was in the treasurer's office, there was no political discussion between the clerk and I. I was there to take care of my business, not to ask the clerk who she voted for in the last election.

Lastly, your decision to choose Hilary Clinton as your example is humorous at best. Are you forgetting that Ms. Clinton and President Obama were bitter rivals during the election season? Many harsh words were exchanged between the two, and certainly neither voted for the other. However, they were able to look past their rivalry and work together. THIS is what Geidl should have done, or at least attempted, considering the fact that she gave Ms. Becker no time to prove her inability to work with her before firing her on the spot.

-- Posted by notinia on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, at 10:56 AM

Thanks notinia for the lesson in civics. However I must stand on my position that as an elected official and because of Iowa's right to work laws, Ms. Geidl had the right to choose her staff as she saw fit. It's sad that when an employee performs below expectations,we need to be fearful of a lawsuit if we choose to terminate. I feel this case sets an example that our County is now willing to accept sub par performers.

-- Posted by Culture Warrior on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, at 10:33 PM

Culture Warrior, I will again address your evaluation of Ms. Becker as a "subpar performer." If you will reread the article, you will see that she was fired the day Ms. Geidl was sworn in, and Ms. Geidl gave no reason other than that she "could not have people that didn't support her" on her team. Her comment about Ms. Becker's ability to work with the team is irrelevant, considering she never worked with her. Why should her ability to perform her job be evaluated before her supervisor had the chance to work with her?

Also, Ms. Becker's political views have no bearing on her work ethic, and the article is correct in stating that a "clerk's position on the treasurer's office does not require a political affiliation with a party or individual. Therefore she argues that she was fired for political activity done outside the scope of her job." In no way does this lawsuit encourage the county to retain workers who "perform below expectations."

Lastly, do you know Ms. Becker personally? Have you worked with her? Have you observed her at work in either office? Do you have any other firsthand experience with her work ethic, attitude, or abilities? If not, then your derogatory comments about her ability to do her job have no merit.

PS, in regards to the "civics lesson," I was only responding to flaws within your own argument. By the way, you're welcome.

-- Posted by notinia on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, at 11:37 PM

notinia, you are missing the point. Please re-read my prior posts and note that my comments are not directed at any specific county employee. My issue here is that our county officials now will walk on eggshells when they consider that an employee might not be performing to expectations. It is the responsibility of our county leaders to assure the constituents that their employees are working to their capacity just as my employer expects me to do the same. Again, I feel that the decision to settle sends a negative message.

-- Posted by Culture Warrior on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, at 8:33 PM

If you know anything about being an employer, you'd know you can't just fire someone because you feel like it. That is discrimination.

-- Posted by mistert on Thu, Mar 12, 2009, at 8:43 PM

Sioux County has an employee handbook that states clearly that you can not support any candidate running for public office by displaying literature in the office you work in. You also cannot engage in a conversation on the premises either supporting or bashing a candidate running for office. Apparently it can be construed as campaining on someones behalf, or misconstrued as bias, and could conceivably lead to throwing out election results if a disgruntled candidate crys 'foul' when losing against someone a county employee publically supported.

We can endorse candidates OUTSIDE of work, off the premises. I can put a sign in my yard, submit editorials or sign my name to a support list, do volunteer work for my party of choice, hang posters on telephone poles (if city ordinance permits), etc. -but 'campaining' is not allowed in the courthouse or it's annex. My understanding is that we are expected to remain impartial at work because it's where election votes are tallied and results finalized. I guess if the candidate you support won and you had literature all over your office supporting them, a disgruntled party could try to claim the count was biased.

Many county policies are similar. If it's in our employee handbook, I have to wonder if it's in Clay County's. I am sure the paper didn't or couldn't print all of the 'story'. It certainly appears that this lady unwisely stepped over the line to prove a point. Unfortunatley she got rewarded financially for it. It doesn't seem like a huge amount of money,all things considered. I hope her legal fees are more than her award. I guess I just add her to the ever-growing list of successful ambulance-chasers out for a buck.

-- Posted by SpencerAlumni77 on Fri, Mar 13, 2009, at 2:09 PM

A person can vote for whom every they want. No matter where they work they shouldn't be talking about it. Voting is a privelage and should be confidential. I live in South Dakota and a person got fired from the police department because he had a political sign in his front yard that didn't agree with his bosses way of voting. He sued and won. He is now retired:) Also the county said that an employees wife couldn't run for a political position in the State. She did and the county employee got fired-- another law suit and the county employee won. I can about imagine what this poor woman in the article went through. It is hell working with a bunch of women any way!!!!!They have a pecking order and a lot of them have the same mentality as a bunch of junior high school girls.

-- Posted by iowagirl on Sat, Mar 14, 2009, at 10:56 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.