City prevails against former manager
by Doug McMurdo
The Times-Independent
Dec 27, 2018 | 2267 views | 0 0 comments | 116 116 recommendations | email to a friend | print


A civil lawsuit that ex-City Manager Rebecca Davidson filed against the City of Moab and former Mayor David Sakrison was effectively dismissed Wednesday, Dec. 26, after Seventh District Judge Don Torgerson issued a ruling.

Davidson filed the lawsuit, one of two, after she was terminated in 2017. The city and Sakrison maintained she was fired due to an often-hostile management style that a third-party investigator, after interviewing employees, determined Davidson’s continuing employment was untenable.

Davidson claimed she was terminated for bringing to the FBI her concerns regarding the city police department. She claimed the city violated her constitutional rights to free speech and protected speech.

Torgerson indicated those claims were based on a “hunch” rather than facts. He noted Davidson was unable to provide evidence that Sakrison, specifically, lobbied “behind the scenes” for her termination after going to the FBI, and that members of the city council accepted the findings of the independent investigator because Sakrison provided them with false information.

The judge wrote that Davidson supported her argument with three facts: She previously had a passing performance review, she was not told why she was put on administrative leave four months later, and she was terminated after meeting with the FBI. “Otherwise, she is speculating about the basis for her termination, but definitely feels like it was retaliatory,” he wrote.

Later in his ruling, Torgerson reiterated Davidson’s lack of evidence: “In sum, plaintiff has not provided any evidence to show that her speech about the police department was even a factor – let alone a motivating factor – in the city council’s decision to terminate her employment,” he wrote.

Torgerson ruled in favor of the city and Sakrison based on the evidence shown on behalf of the city – and what Davidson failed to show. In issuing summary judgment for both defendants, Torgerson noted Davidson failed to prove causation, meaning that her termination was in retaliation for talking to federal agents, and that the council would not have voted to fire her had she not gone to the FBI.

“She has not produced any evidence demonstrating that her hunch in that regard is correct or disputing defendants’ position,” wrote the judge. On the other hand, Torgerson noted the facts support the defendants’ request for dismissal. Each of Davidson’s alleged causes of action were dismissed.

Phone calls seeking comment from city officials, Sakrison or Davidson, or their attorneys, Zakia Richardson for Davidson and Mary Ann May for the city and Sakrison, were not immediately returned.

Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.