Court Rules in Favor of County Board on OMA Challenge
A former county employee filed a lawsuit against a county board claiming the board violated various provisions of the Open Meetings Act (OMA). Specifically, the former employee claimed the county board improperly held three closed sessions to discuss his employment, which later led to his termination. He claimed that the county board failed to cite a statutory exemption before going into closed session and that the board did not have a quorum present at the meetings because they were held remotely. The former employee also claimed the county board failed to conduct timely semi-annual reviews of the board's closed session meeting minutes. He requested that the court order the board to comply with the OMA, release the minutes from the three closed sessions at issue, and award him costs and attorneys fees.
The county board filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds, including that some of his claims were moot and that his complaint was untimely because it was not filed within 60 days of the meetings at issue. The board also argued that his claims were the subject of previous lawsuits brought by the former employee and were, therefore, barred by res judicata. Finally, the board filed a motion for sanctions against the former employee for filing frivolous claims against the county.
The trial court ruled in the county's favor and dismissed the lawsuit. The court determined that the claims were barred by "res judicata" because they had already been decided in two previous cases. The court also found the OMA claims to be time-barred because they were not filed within 60 days of the meetings at issue, and that some of his claims were moot because the county board had resolved those claims. The court also ruled in favor of the county on its motion for sanctions, finding that the current lawsuit was frivolous because the former employee brought claims that had already been adjudicated, and ordered the former employee to pay the county $43,305.50.
The former employee appealed, and the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case, finding that the OMA claims were not timely filed, some of the claims were moot, and all claims were barred by res judicata because they had been previously adjudicated. The Appellate Court rejected the former employee's argument that the OMA allowed a plaintiff to file a lawsuit within 60 days of discovering the OMA violation, holding that the "discovery rule" only applies to discovery of a violation of the OMA by the States Attorney. The Court also found that the former employee's claims that the county board failed to conduct its semi-annual review of closed session meeting minutes to be moot because the county board had since conducted a review. The Court also rejected the former employee's argument that the trial court erred when it did not conduct an "in camera" review of the closed session meeting minutes, finding that a review of the minutes was not necessary for the trial court to resolve the case on the county's motion to dismiss. Finally, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's award of sanctions but remanded the case back to the trial court to review the basis for its award. Dorman v. Madison County Board.
0 comments:
Post a Comment