Andrew W.

Stavros (8615)
Adam G. Clark (13047)
STAVROS LAW P.C.
11693 South 700 East, Suite 200
Draper, Utah 84020
Tel: (801) 758-7604
Fax: (801) 893-3573
Email: andy@stavroslaw.com
adam@stavroslaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

SANPETE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

DEBORAH DAHL, an individual, and

CAROL M. HAVERON, an individual,

:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
vs.
:
:
SPRING CITY, a Utah municipal
:
corporation, Jack D. Monnett, Neil Sorenson :
and Keith Coltharp, each in their official
:
and individual capacities,
:
:
Defendants.
:

COMPLAINT
(Jury Demand)
(Tier II Discovery)
Case No.:
Judge:

Plaintiffs Deborah Dahl and Carol M. Haveron (collectively hereinafter Plaintiffs) by

and through their counsel of record, bring the following Complaint against Spring City, a Utah
municipal corporation, and in support thereof, allege the following:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

Plaintiff Deborah Dahl is a resident of Sanpete County, State of Utah, who at all

times relevant to this Complaint, was an employee of Defendant Spring City.

2.

Plaintiff Carol M. Haveron is a resident of Sanpete County, State of Utah, who at

all times relevant to this Complaint, was an employee of Defendant Spring City
3.

Defendant Spring City is a municipal corporation under Utah law organized and

established in Sanpete County, Utah.

4.

Defendant Jack D. Monnett is a resident of Sanpete County, Utah. At all relevant

times, Monnett was acting Mayor of Spring City.

5.

Defendant Neil Sorenson is a resident of Sanpete County, Utah. At all relevant

times, Sorenson was a member of Spring Citys Council.

6.

Defendant Keith Coltharp is a resident of Sanpete County, Utah. At all relevant

times, Sorenson was a member of Spring Citys Council.

7.

All actions and omissions giving rise to this action occurred pursuant to an

employment relationship between the parties in Sanpete County, Utah. Accordingly, jurisdiction
and venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 78B-3-304(2).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8.

Plaintiff Dahl and Haveron were tenured employees of Spring City, at all times

relevant hereto. At the time of her termination on March 30, 2015, Ms. Dahl was employed fulltime as the Spring City Recorder.
9.

At the time of her termination on March 30, 2015, Ms. Haveron was employed

full-time as the Spring City Treasurer.

10.

During their tenure as Recorder and Treasurer, Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron

became aware of certain conduct by the Mayor and certain City Council Members which they

believed was illegal, unethical, and/or involved the waste and/or misuse of public funds, property
and/or manpower, including gross mismanagement, abuse of authority and unethical conduct, as
further described herein.
11.

Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron formally communicated the conduct orally and in

writing to the Mayor, Council and others, including the City's Auditor, as more fully described
herein, throughout their employment.
12.

In February, 2014 Ms. Dahl was informed by Council Member Sorenson that her

daughter, Allysia Dahl, should look for another job. At the time of this communication, Mr.
Sorenson informed Ms. Dahl that he and the Mayor were displeased that Allysia Dahl had
written a letter to members of the public concerning the Mayoral election that the Mayor and
Sorenson deemed inappropriate.
13.

In September, 2014 Allysia was fired by the Mayor. While she was briefly rehired

following complaints by the City's Judge, she was then fired again in November, 2014 for
purported budget reasons. However, the City's replacement earned more money than Allysia,
despite the Mayors claim that the termination was for budgetary reasons.
14.

From February, 2014 up until their termination, Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron

became aware of conduct by the Mayor, Council Member Sorenson and Council Member
Coltharp that Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron believed was illegal, inappropriate or involved gross
mismanagement and misuse of funds, waste or unethical behavior by the Mayor and certain
Council members. In each instance, Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron either reported the issues
directly to the Mayor and/or Council and opposed the conduct, and/or reported it to the City
Auditor, or otherwise refused to engage in the prohibited conduct they were requested to commit.
15.

For example, in May, 2014 Courtney and Sheila Syme, residents of Spring City,

asked to be put on the agenda to split a lot they owned in Spring City. Ms. Haveron informed the
Symes that they needed to pay a fee as part of their application. The Citys current zoning
ordinances required 1.06 acres for a building lot. The Symes were seeking to split a half acre lot
(that was previously grandfathered) into a quarter acre lot, in clear violation of the Citys zoning
and land use ordinances which required a minimum 1.06 acres for a lot.
16.

Planning and zoning originally denied the Symes application. However,

subsequent to the denial, and in violation of the Citys ordinances, Mayor Monnett usurped the
power of the committee and placed the application on the agenda and the Council and the Mayor
approved the request and waived the fee for splitting the lo.
17.

Concerned about this clear violation of the Citys ordinances, and the Mayors

and Counsels refusal to abide by the law, Ms. Dahl called Todd Godfrey, the City Attorney,
who informed her that the City could not approve the segregation of the lot. However, the
segregation of the lot was approved by the Mayor and Council.
18.

This issue was subsequently reported by Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron to the City

Auditor as part of the Citys 2014 audit. The Auditors report found that the City allowed a
citizen to split his lot and create a one-quarter acre lot, which is not in compliance with the City's
zoning ordinances, even though the City had sought legal advice before allowing the exception
and were advised not to do it, but approved it anyway.
19.

In June, 2014 Council Member Sorensen had dug up a Questar Gas Line while

performing work at his shop. Spring City Officer Joe Allred responded to the incident and
informed Council Member Sorenson that he would be issuing a citation. The following Monday
morning when Ms. Dahl went to work, Mayor Monnett and Council Member Sorensen were in
the parking area and followed Dahl into the City building. They asked her to find the police

report on the gas line break. She informed them that she did not have access to the report, and
that they would have to ask her daughter, Allysia Dahl, the Court Clerk, for the information.
20.

Mayor Monnett and Council Member Sorenson seemed distressed over the

situation and wondered aloud if a citation had been issued to Council Member Sorenson for the
incident. The following Saturday Officer Allred was fired. When Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron
inquired about the reasons for Officer Allreds termination, Mayor Monnett sent a statement
indicating he could fire an employee on a probationary basis without any reason, but failed to
articulate the reasons for her termination. Both Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron expressed concerns
that the firing of Officer Allred was in response to the performance of his duties and potentially
issuing a citation to Council Member Sorenson.
21.

In June, 2014 Ms. Dahl informed Council Member Sorenson that the Council

needed to vote on and approve bids for roads in an open, public forum, in accordance with open
meeting requirements and the Citys procurement requirements. Councilman Sorenson had
awarded a bid to a contractor without a meeting, public notice and a formal vote and approval.
Ms. Dahl informed Council Member Sorenson that his conduct was inappropriate and in
violation of City ordinances and Utah law. In addition, two road bids of $45,000 and $96,500
were awarded during the year without formal approval of the award being placed on the Council
agenda during a public meeting.
22.

Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron both raised concerns about the bid process,

compliance with City ordinances and Utah law and the failure to provide adequate public notice
to the Mayor and Council, and subsequently reported their concerns to the City Auditor, after the
Mayor and certain Council members refused to abide by the law.
23.

In August, 2014 Council Member Sorensen brought in two cases of MREs

(meals-ready-to-eat) and told Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron that they could each have a case. The
MREs were City property. Dahl and Haveron told Sorenson that they could purchase the MREs
but they could not take them since they were purchased with City funds and were the Citys
property. Council Member Sorensen told Dahl and Haveron that he had already given a box to
the employees at the yard. He also stated that he had tried an MRE at the City yard and it didnt
taste too bad.
24.

Later that night, there was an emergency preparedness meeting at the City gym

and the next morning the Citys MREs had disappeared. Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron were later
informed that Sorenson had handed them out during the emergency preparedness meeting.
Subsequently, Ms. Haveron and Ms. Dahl reported this incident to the City Auditor in January,
2015 as part of the audit process.
25.

In September, 2014 Ms. Dahl was informed by a citizen that Council Member

Sorensons daughters boyfriend, who was working for the City, may be using drugs. Ms. Dahl
informed Mayor Monnett about what she had learned. The following Monday, Mayor Monnett
obtained two drug test kits from the City to test the daughter and his boyfriend. Later that week,
another drug test kit was missing. Ms. Dahl informed the Mayor that he could not use the Citys
property to administer tests to non-employees, and that it wasnt appropriate to have the test
administered by the Mayor and Council in this manner. This issue was also reported to the City
Auditor by Dahl.
26.

In November, 2014 Ms. Dahl received an email with photos of Councilman

Sorensen using Mt. Pleasant City equipment at his yard for building a hay barn, along with a
picture of Kent Kummer, the Spring City electrician, who was on-site apparently assisting with
the building. Ms. Dahl discussed the photos with Ms. Haveron, and Ms. Haveron and Ms. Dahl

decided that this issue needed to be reported to the City Auditor. In or about December, 2014
Dahl provided the photos to the City Auditor, and Ms. Haveron also discussed the issue with the
Auditor when he was in Spring City performing the audit.
27.

Previously, Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron had been approached by the Mayor and

Councilman Sorenson about the incident and asked whether they had reported the incident, or
what their involvement in reporting the incident was and whether the conduct Sorenson engaged
in was inappropriate.
28.

During this same timeframe, Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron had continually

reminded the Council and Mayor about their failure to follow open meeting laws and provide
appropriate notice to the public about meetings and including all Council Members in meetings.
Ms. Haveron and Ms. Dahl reported these items, as well as the Mayors and Councilman
Sorensons and Councilman Coltharps failure to have open and public meetings, their practice
of discussing City business outside of Council meetings, and voting on decisions outside of
council meetings during 2014.
29.

After Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron reported these items to the City Auditor, he

determined that numerous items were not on the meeting agenda, but voted upon, in violation of
law.
30.

During the same time period, Ms. Haveron had repeatedly expressed concern to

the Mayor and Council about budget issues. Ms. Haveron told the Mayor and Council that the
City was running in the red which necessitated transfers from PTIF accounts to pay for items.
She further expressed her concerns to the Mayor and Council that the City was exceeding its
budget in certain departments. She subsequently reported these issues to the City Auditor who
confirmed her concerns in the Citys audit, and noted that the City had exceeded its budget in

two departments.
31.

In addition, both Dahl and Haveron reported issues regarding the Mayor's and

Council's failure to obtain purchase orders before purchases were made, in violation of City
ordinances. These issues were also reported to the Mayor and Council and the City Auditor, who
again confirmed their concerns regarding purchase orders for expenditures in the City Auditor's
audit.
32.

In February, 2015 the City received an anonymous letter asking for Council

Member Sorenson and Mayor Monnett to resign. In response, Council Member Sorenson asked
both Dahl and Haveron if they believed he had done anything wrong. In his questioning,
Sorenson implied that Dahl and/or Haveron had written the letter. Sorenson also suggested
directly to Dahl that he thought her daughter had sent the letter (or another citizen), and inquired
about what she knew. The following day, Sorenson called Dahl in and asked her about what
could be done about the letter. Dahl contacted that City Auditor and asked him what she should
do. She was informed to contact the Attorney Generals office as well as the City Auditors
office, and she did.
33.

On or about March 27, 2015 Council Member Scott Allred approached both Dahl

and Haveron and informed them that they were going to be fired on March 30, 2015. He stated
they were being fired because of the results of the Citys audit and the information that had been
provided to the Auditor by Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron.
34.

On March 30, 2015 Mayor Monnett, Councilman Sorenson and Councilman

Coltharp terminated Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron in separate meetings. Ms. Dahl was told that she
had done wonderful things for the City, and that she was a great employee, but that the City was
going to move in a new direction.

35.

Shortly thereafter, Ms. Haveron met with Mayor Monnett, Councilman Sorenson

and Councilman Coltharp. She was also told she was being terminated without cause and that she
had been an effective employee.
36.

The termination paperwork completed and signed by the Mayor on March 30,

2015 also stated that Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron were terminated without cause.
37.

Mayor Monnett also subsequently stated publicly that Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron

were not terminated for cause, and that they were good employees and that he would provide
recommendations for future employment, if needed.
38.

On August 2, 2015, after the City had received notice that Plaintiffs had retained

counsel, the City, through its attorney, issued a letter to Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron, threatening
them with legal action and falsely alleging they had retained documents, refused access to email
accounts and engaged in other inappropriate conduct while employed.
39.

That same day Dahl and Haveron received wages they were owed, but the

amounts were incorrect, and included deductions for taxes on items that had already been taxed.
Dahl and Haveron have yet to be properly paid for these items.
40.

On Thursday June 4, 2015 the Mayor, Council Member Sorenson and Council

Member Coltharp made slanderous and libelous statements about Ms. Dahl and Ms. Haveron,
including during a budget hearing at the City. They stated that Ms. Haveron and Ms. Dahl had
been fired for sabotaging the computers, that they had erased documents and that there
were two months of revenue missing and inconsistencies in the general ledger. They also stated
that the records of the City had been compromised, erased or just not done and those responsible
were no longer employed (inferring that Dahl and Haveron had engaged in illegal conduct).

41.

The statements were untrue and made intentionally and with malice, or,

alternatively, with negligence and/or gross negligence.

42.

Also subsequent to learning that The Mayor also read aloud a prepared letter to

the public, stating that it recently learned the records of the City have been compromised. That
is to say that the official recordings of public meetings and the actions taken at them were either
erased or never recorded. Moreover, the person responsible for producing minutes did not do so
The person or persons responsible for this failure are no longer employed by the City.
43.

The letter read aloud to the public further stated that certain digital shredding

software was installed by someone on the cities [sic] computers and that it appears to have
been designed to shred digital evidence and cloak the improper use of the cities [sic] computer
equipment.
44.

This letter was read to the public after the City, Mayor and Council had received

notice from Ms. Dahl's and Ms. Haveron's counsel that they intended to pursue legal claims
against the City.
45.

Prior to this meeting and thereafter, on information and belief, the Mayor, Council

Member Sorenson and Council Member Coltharp, have made libelous and slanderous statements
similar to these statement acting outside of their official duties in an effort to destroy Ms. Dahls
and Ms. Haverons reputation in the community, cause significant damage to each of them.
46.

Defendants have continued to make statements concerning the Plaintiffs that a

threating and in retaliation for the reporting of or opposition to Defendants conduct.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Utah Protection of Public Employees Act Against All Defendants)
47.

The preceding paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated herein by this

reference.
10

48.

Each Plaintiff is or was an employee within the meaning of the Utah Protection

of Public Employees Act, Utah Code Ann. 67-21-1 et seq. (UPPEA).

49.

Defendants are each an employer within the meaning of the UPPEA.

50.

During their employment with Spring City, Dahl and Haveron communicated in

good faith 1) the waste or misuse of public funds, property or manpower; 2) violations or
suspected violations of laws, rules and regulations of Utah and Spring City; and 3) gross
mismanagement, abuse of authority and/or unethical conduct by Defendants.
51.

Plaintiffs communications of such conduct were communicated in writing and

orally in good faith to the Mayor, Council members and the City Auditor.
52.

Defendants took adverse action against Plaintiffs, including terminating their

employment, because Plaintiffs reported and provided truthful information to the Mayor, Council
and City Auditor during their employment regarding waste or misuse of public funds, property or
manpower, violations or suspected violations of laws, rules and regulations of Utah and Spring
City; and gross mismanagement, abuse of authority and/or unethical conduct by Defendants.
53.

Defendants also took adverse action, including terminating their employment,

against Plaintiffs because they each objected to, or otherwise opposed and/or refused to carry out
directives that they reasonably believed violated Utah law and Spring City ordinances.
54.

In addition, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs in violation of the UPPEA by

threatening and intimidating Plaintiffs following their termination with instituting civil and/or
criminal action against Plaintiffs, by representing to the public and others that Plaintiffs had
engaged in criminal, illegal or other inappropriate behavior during their employment with Spring
City, or other wrongdoing.

11

55.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered

and continue to suffer damages, including loss of wages and benefits, compensatory damages,
including non-pecuniary losses in an amount to be determinate at trial.
56.

Under the UPPEA, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their actual damages,

injunctive relief prohibiting further violations, back pay, front pay (or reinstatement), attorneys
fees, court costs, including witness fees, and interest.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Termination in Violation of a Clear and Substantial Public Policy Against
Defendant Spring City)
57.

The preceding paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated herein by this

reference.
58.

Plaintiffs termination violated a clear and substantial public policy of the State of

Utah, including the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Ann. 52-4-101 et seq., the
Utah Municipal Code, Utah Code Ann. 10-1-101 et seq. and the Utah Municipal Officers and
Employees Ethics Act, Utah Code Ann. 10-3-1301 et seq.
59.

Plaintiffs actions as set forth above implicated these substantial and important

public policy of the State of Utah, and their conduct in furtherance of such public policies
resulted in their termination.
60.

As a result of their terminations, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including lost

wages and benefits and other income, and interest thereon, compensatory damages, as well as
non-pecuniary losses, and costs and attorneys fees incurred in bringing this action.
61.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of such damages in such amounts

as proven at trial.
JURY DEMAND

12

Plaintiffs request trial by jury on issues so triable to jury pursuant to Utah R. Civ. P. 38.
DISCOVERY DESIGNATION
Plaintiffs designate this case as a Tier II case under Rule 26 of the Utah R. Civ. P.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, as follows:
1.

For an order awarding Plaintiffs all wages, compensation and other economic

benefits lost as a result of Defendants actions and omissions, including front and back pay, as
determined by proof at trial;
2.

For an order awarding Plaintiffs compensatory damages in amount proved at trial,

including damages for non-pecuniary losses;

3.

For an order awarding Plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs of suit necessitated as a

result of Defendants actions;

4.

For an order enjoining Defendants from engaging in conduct to threaten, harass,

intimidate or otherwise damage Plaintiffs image and reputation in the community and with
prospective employers;
5.

For an order awarding Plaintiffs pre and post-judgment interest; and

6.

For any and all other legal or equitable relief which the Court deems appropriate.

DATED this 25th day of September, 2015.

/s/
Andrew W. Stavros
Andrew W. Stavros
STAVROS LAW P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13