Linn County seeks dismissal of ex-legal assistant’s lawsuit

CEDAR RAPIDS — Linn County is asking the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a former legal assistant against the county and two prosecutors for sexual harassment and retaliation, saying the lawsuit’s claims lack detail and plausible violations.

According to a motion filed by the county on Wednesday, the former legal assistant, Bonnie Waller, in her “sprawling list of slights ranging from office gossip to alleged espionage,” are broad and that she fails to include claims that violate Iowa law and details of the incidents.

Those points, the county argues, are required under the law that allows negligence claims against municipalities and its employees.

Waller began working in the county attorney’s office July 26, 2021, and was terminated for engaging in misconduct July 28, 2023.

She filed a petition Nov. 10 against the county, Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks and Monica Slaughter, the first assistant prosecutor.

Also, the motion states, the sexual harassment claims should be dismissed against all three defendants because they fail to state a “plausible violation” or plead a law clearly established at the time of the alleged violation as required by the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act.

Waller’s claim against Slaughter relies on “conclusory” allegations and/or allegations regarding actions of another person not involved in the lawsuit, the motion states.

Waller, in her petition, asserted Slaughter was “preoccupied with her breasts and known throughout the office for being inappropriate, temperamental and punitive.”

The allegations lack details and fail to identify the “when, where and how” of the alleged actions, according to the motion.

Waller also asserted that Slaughter bullied another former Linn County employee and used a disparaging comment about a criminal defendant’s face.

The civil rights law doesn’t provide a means to vindicate the rights of others, only to address discrimination against a plaintiff, the county argued. Waller’s allegations don’t support her sexual harassment claim, and it is unclear if she was even present during the alleged incidents or is relying on others’ assertions.

The scar

Waller provided only one allegation with any details — about Slaughter showing Waller her surgery scar on Sept. 16, 2021, which, according to her petition, she protested and insisted she didn’t want to see — while making the county defendants “sort through the remaining tangle of yarn” in the lawsuit.

Defendants shouldn’t be forced to defend themselves against “implausible, unparticular claims,” the county states in its motion.

The county also questions the timeliness of the civil rights claim. There is a 300-day statute of limitations, and Waller filed her first civil rights claim on Nov. 30, 2022, which was 440 days after Waller said Slaughter showed her scar.

Sexual harassment

In Waller’s sexual harassment claims against Maybanks, she “infers” Maybanks perpetuated Slaughter’s harassment by improperly having a third party conduct an independent investigation regarding the incident, according to the county’s motion.

She also asserts conclusory results in her petition by stating, “Given how co-workers seemed to accept Slaughter’s provocative behavior, Waller believed that if she complained to Maybanks, nothing would happen except that Slaughter would target her more.”

The allegations presume Maybank’s hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical complaint, the county’s motion states.

Waller, in her petition, also asserted other employees complained to Maybanks about Slaughter’s behavior and he didn’t take any action. But she doesn’t include any “meaningful details” or identify the employees, nature of complaints or time frame, according to the county.

She reported Slaughter’s sexual harassment to Maybanks on Oct. 7, 2022, but didn’t identify what conduct she reported to him or whether the sexual harassment was directed at her or another person, the motion states. Waller can’t “plausibly” claim Maybanks’ response constitutes sexual harassment, the county contends.

The county asks to have the sexual harassment claim dismissed

Retaliation

The retaliation claims also should be dismissed because they lack details as required by law, the county contends.

Waller said Slaughter insisted she use PTO, instead of flex time, after her lunch break, and Waller overheard Slaughter telling a co-worker that she wouldn’t talk to “her” unless it was required.

Neither of these alleged acts are adverse actions under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Waller asserts Slaughter declined one flex time request on Oct. 13, 2021, but it didn’t cause Waller to suffer “severe injury or harm,” as required under the law.

The overheard comment didn’t affect the terms, conditions or privileges of her employment, according to the county’s motion. Waller never said Slaughter stopped speaking to her. The alleged comment doesn’t even reference Waller as the person Slaughter meant.

Waller also asserted Slaughter retaliated against her by assigning her to listen to and transcribe jail calls rather than assisting in a trial. But Waller concedes that listening to jail calls was part of her job duties.

The temporary job assignment isn’t an adverse employment action, the county asserts.

Waller also said Maybanks retaliated against her because when another prosecutor, Rene Schulte, who is no longer with the office, complained to him and Slaughter that she needed Waller’s help at trial, they both refused. Again, this temporary assignment doesn’t violate the law, the county contends.

Waller also asserted that she reported to Maybanks about being uncomfortable around Slaughter and asked that Slaughter’s communications be limited to email, instead of in-person. But she said he “thanked” her for understanding that it was necessary for Slaughter to interact with her in-person.

Maybanks declining her request didn’t “detrimentally” affect her employment, the county’s motion stated.

“This is particularly the case when the third-party investigator had already completed his investigation of (Waller’s) complaints and found that Slaughter had not engaged in sexual harassment,” according to the county’s motion.

Waller, in her petition, said she asked Maybanks to put a stop to the retaliation on Feb. 23, 2023, but he insisted that he needed more information to investigate and said he wasn’t aware of any bullying or retaliation in the office.

It’s unclear what incidents Waller reported, the county states. The context of the allegation infers that Slaughter allegedly encouraged co-workers to complain to human resources about Waller and another employee allegedly criticized Waller for her professionalism in the office.

Maybanks’ request for more information was reasonable, given the “vague” allegations, the county contends. Asking for additional information doesn’t show retaliation.

A civil trial date hasn’t been set at this time.

Comments: (319) 398-8318; trish.mehaffey@thegazette.com