A Yavapai County Superior Court judge on April 20 dismissed a lawsuit by Camp Verde’s former town clerk who alleged she was forced to resign.
Deborah Barber claimed that top officials of the town harassed, intimidated and retaliated against her, undermining her authority as town clerk and poisoning her reputation among other employees.
She filed a lawsuit Christmas Eve against the Town of Camp Verde, Mayor Charlie German, Town Manager Russ Martin and Marshal Nancy Gardner. Other defendants were Martin’s wife, Ann Martin, and Camp Verde Marshal’s Office assistant Darby Martin, who is not related.
The defendants on March 7 filed a motion to dismiss the suit, claiming Barber failed to provide them notice of her claim within the time limit set by state statute.
Under Arizona law, anyone with a claim against a public entity or public employee must file it within 180 days of the date the cause of action accrues — that is, when the damaged party realizes he or she has been damaged and knows the cause.
“The purpose of this statute is to give a public entity notice of a claim, an opportunity to assess the claim and the potential for liability, and a chance to settle the claim before an action is filed in court,” Superior Court Judge Jeffrey G. Paupore wrote in his three-page order granting the motion to dismiss.
In this case, there was a dispute over the date on which the claim accrued.
The defendants, in their motion to dismiss, claimed it was Dec. 15, 2014, the day Barber resigned.
In his response, Barber’s attorney, Robert Earle, of Sedona, called the motion “foolish and without reason.” He contended that the date was Sept. 24, 2015, and that Barber sent a notice of her claim to the defendants on March 16, 2016, which was within the 180-day time frame.
His reasoning was based on the fact that Barber had filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against an employer accused of retaliation. After the EEOC investigates the charge, it issues a notice of right to sue, according to the agency’s website.
Earle said Barber met those requirements — filing her charge with the EEOC on June 11, 2015, and receiving her right-to-sue notice on Sept. 24. She then provided notice to the defendants on March 16, 2016.
Paupore disagreed.
“Plaintiff offers no legal authority in support of this assertion,” he ruled. “The court finds the date of plaintiff’s departure from work is Dec. 15, 2014. This is the date plaintiff’s claim accrued and she had 180 days from that date, or by June 13, 2015, to properly serve the ‘public entity’ defendant with notice of claim required by [statute]. There is no dispute plaintiff failed to file the notice of claim by June 13, 2015.”
He granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice — which means Barber can no longer pursue the claim — but denied their request that Barber pay their attorney fees.
The lawsuit, filed in Yavapai Superior Court, alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress and constructive discharge, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
In her lawsuit, Barber said the defendants undermined her authority to function as town clerk and poisoned her to other employees, creating “an atmosphere of extreme hostility and distress intending to force [her] to resign and even offering her a separate job, an agreement they breached.” Barber alleged that German libeled her by placing written information in the town records “wrongly accusing her of dispensing classified information, breaking protocol and the law.”
The lawsuit also claimed that some information Barber provided as part of her duties as town clerk reflected poorly on Gardner and the town, “exposing them to criticism and criminal prosecution for altering officials records and for covering up wrong acts of the Marshal’s Office.”
Barber alleged Garner retaliated by “making harmful physical contact” with her.
In regard to Ann Martin, Barber claimed she “encouraged and facilitated the promiscuous behavior of [Barber’s] mentally challenged daughter, culminating in her daughter’s abandonment of her children which resulted in [Barber] having to initiate guardianship and adoption proceedings for her grandchildren.”
She said the proceedings cost her more than $15,000 in attorney fees and legal costs.
In his response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Earle wrote, “When [Barber], experiencing severe emotional distress as a result of the actions of the defendants, objected to this lewd and outrageous manipulative behavior, as any reasonable caring and loving parent would, Russ Martin began a campaign to assassinate the character and reputation of the plaintiff, with the intent of forcing the termination of her employment with the Town of Camp Verde.
“CVMO helped cover up the reprehensible conduct that had been directed against the plaintiff.”
