A Washington County judge has ruled against the Stillwater Area School District’s motion to dismiss allegations that the district violated the state’s open-meeting law, the whistleblower statute, the data practices act and the human rights act.
On Thursday, Washington County District Court Judge Tad Jude rejected most of the district’s motion to dismiss the charges against it and then-board chairwoman Sarah Stivland outlined in Hoheisel’s lawsuit, which was originally filed on May 5, 2020. An amended complaint, with three additional counts, was filed four months later.
Hoheisel, who lives in Lake Elmo, served as executive director of finance and operations for the school district from 2015 until her termination in September.
In 2017, Hoheisel filed a hostile work environment complaint alleging gender discrimination and harassment on the part of Stivland and another board member, according to the lawsuit. She filed another complaint in February 2020 in which she documented conversations she had with then-Superintendent Denise Pontrelli about her hostile work environment and asked that measures be taken to stop it, according to the lawsuit.
Less than a month later, the school board had voted to place Hoheisel on administrative leave.
The lawsuit says Stillwater school officials and Stivland violated the state’s whistleblower statute when they “penalized, threatened and disciplined (her) because she had, in good faith, reported violations or suspected violations of federal, state, common law or rule adopted pursuant to law to her employer.”
The lawsuit also states the district and Stivland:
- Violated the state’s open-meeting laws by failing to close a meeting that included preliminary consideration of allegations against her.
- Violated the state’s data practices act by being “woefully careless, haphazard, and, at times, entirely intentional with identifying Hoheisel as Employee A in the ongoing school board investigations.”
- Violated the state’s human rights act by terminating Hoheisel for complaining about a hostile work environment, a move she claims “constitutes a reprisal and retaliation.”
In the decision, Jude ruled in favor of two of the requests for dismissal. Hoheisel’s claims of breach of contract and failure to pay wages over 35 non-duty days, or unpaid time off, were dismissed, Jude wrote, because she “cannot establish that she was actually entitled to payment for 35 non-duty days.”
Among the items Hoheisel is seeking: damages in excess of $50,000; attorney’s fees, and for “Stivland to be found personally liable for her intentional and willful violations” of the state’s open-meeting law.
Reached by phone on Friday, Stivland said: “The judge has ruled on our motion to dismiss. The facts of the case have not yet been presented, and I look forward to having the opportunity to shed light on the truth of what has happened here.”
