Lawsuit - Kathy Montgomery Vs Town of Guernsey, Wyoming

Case 2:20-cv-00061-ABJ Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 19
ni- TR!C T C0U f? r

Bruce S. Asay W. S. B.# 5- 1739
DliiRICr OF H'rOHIffC
Gregory B. Asay W.S.B. #5-7032
Associated Legal Group, LLC mUPR-s PH I =05
1812 Pebrican Ave.
Cheyenne, WY 82001 MA(:GAi;et EOTKOVS CLF'--'
(307)632-2888 CHEYENNE
(307)632-2828(fax)
Attorneysfor Plaintijf, Kathy Montgomeiy
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
KATHY MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff,
Docket No . 1QcmU\-T
vs..
TOWN OF GUERNSEY,a Wyoming

municipal corporation, NICK PAUSTIAN,
as an individual and in his official capacity
as mayor ofthe Town of Guernsey, KATE
FARMER,as an individual and in her
official capacity as the clerk and treasurer
for the Town of Guernsey, MATT
ALFRED,as an individual and in his
official capacity as building inspector,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, Kathy Montgomery (Plaintiff or Montgomery), by and through her
undersigned counsel, for her Complaint, against Defendants, Town of Guernsey et al. states and
alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for violations of
the Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution and
certain state law claims. The Plaintiff brings this action for actual and compensatory damages as
well as attorney's fees. The Plaintiff brings this Complaint for discrimination and retaliation
based on her unlawful and void termination from employment in 2020 where Ms. Montgomery
previously worked as the deputy clerk for the Town of Guernsey.
PARTIES
2. Ms. Montgomery, the Plaintiff, is a resident of Hartville, Platte County,
Wyoming. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, Town of
Guernsey ("Guernsey" or "Town").
3. The Town, Defendant, is a Wyoming municipal corporation situated in Platte
County, Wyoming. The Guernsey previously employed the Plaintiff until she was wrongfully
terminated in February of2020. Guernsey will be vicariously liable for the actions of its
employees acting under color of title while performing tortious or unconstitutional acts.
4. Defendant Nick Paustian (Paustian), at all times relevant was the mayor of
Guernsey and acted under color of title when terminating the Plaintiff in violation of her
protected rights. Further, Paustian disseminated false information relating to Plaintiffs job
performance and ability.
5. Defendant Matt Allred (Allred), at all times relevant was the building inspector
for Defendant Town and acted under color of title when he disseminated false information
relating to Plaintiffs job performance, ethical fortitude and ability.
6. Defendant Kate Farmer(Fanner), at all times relevant was the clerk and treasurer
for Guernsey and was acting under color of title when she assisted with the termination of the
Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiffs protected rights. Further, Farmer disseminated false
information relating to Plaintiffs job performance and ability.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 as
the causes of action arose under the laws of the United States of America and the state of
Wyoming. As the acts complained of herein were and are now being committed within the state
of Wyoming,this Court has jurisdiction over any contract, statutory or common law claim.
Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on July 2, 2007. Over the course of
her nearly thirteen years working for the Town,she encountered and overcame multiple
challenges.
9. In her position as deputy clerk, Ms. Montgomery was directly supervised by
Defendant, Kate Farmer, the town clerk. Issues with Fanner began in 2019 when a town
employee admitted to Farmer that he had accessed his employee file without permission and
removed negative documents. Farmer asked Plaintiff what she would do.
10. Ms. Montgomery believed this action should be reported, but her supervisor
refused to move forward on any disciplinary action or further reporting.
11. In 2019, Ms. Montgomery made several reports to her supervisor regarding
behavior she believed to be questionable, including; reporting a town employee for falsifying
time cards, a town employee drinking alcohol during lunch and another town employee using
Guernsey owned trucks and Town employees for a personal move. Each time she reported,
she was treated like a nuisance and no follow up was ever performed.
12. In September of2019, the mayor called a mandatory staff meeting at which a
town employee was allowed to stand, defame and disparage Ms. Montgomery: publicly
calling her a "narc," a liar and a trouble starter. She is also accused of colluding with the
3
Guernsey Police Department(GPD). Shortly after, Ms. Montgomery discovered this staff
meeting was a planned ruse meant to embarrass and hurt Ms. Montgomery.
13. In January of 2020, the mayor told Ms. Montgomery that several town employees
had come forward complaining that she had been harassing them including those she had
previously reported to her supervisor. The mayor advised her that she was stepping out of
bounds and creating a negative work atmosphere.
14. On January 5, 2020, Ms. Montgomery began medical treatments precipitated by
the extreme work stress. She was put on medical leave, but allowed to work from home.
She noticed that her typical work duties were being performed without her.
15. Shortly after, Ms. Montgomery told her supervisor that she might need an
additional medical procedure. The town attorney personally called Ms. Montgomery and
interrogated her for an hour. At the conclusion of the call, the town attorney informed Ms.
Montgomery that she was being accused of unethical behavior.
16. On January 7, 2020, Ms. Montgomery met with the mayor. The mayor told her
that she is being let go without any reason or cause as she was an "at-will" employee.
17. Ms. Montgomery was terminated two days after telling her supervisor that she
would likely need additional medical care.'
18. In response to her termination, Ms. Montgomery requested a hearing on her
dismissal. The request was denied in a letter which included false statements about Ms.
Montgomery and her work for the Town.
19. Other facts will be discussed below as relevant.
^ Plaintiff's possible ADA discrimination is being investigated separately from this action.
4
CLAIM I- Violation of Due Process - Liberty Interest
20. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if
fully set forth herein.
21. Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected liberty interest to her continued ability to
work in her chosen profession.
22. Wyoming recognizes that "[wjhere a person's good name, reputation, honor, or
integrity [are] at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an
opportunity to be heard are essential." Crofts v. State ex rel. Department ofGame & Fish^ 367
P.3d 619,626, 2016 WY 4,(Wyo. 2016)(quoting Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433,
437, 91 S.Ct. 507, 510,27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971).
23. "[W]e explained that the dismissal of a government employee accompanied by a
'charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community'
would qualify as something 'the government is doing to him' so as to trigger the due process right
to a hearing at which the employee could refute the charges and publicly clear his name." Id. at
626(internal citations omitted).
24. In order for the Plaintiff to recover she will need to show that the Defendants
made statements which:
(1)impugned her "good name, reputation, honor, or integrity;"

(2) were false;
(3)occurred in the course of her termination or will foreclose other employment
opportunities; and
(4) were published.
Id.; see also Paul v. Davis,424 U.S. 693, 710, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165,47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976)(for a
liberty interest to attach,("the defamation had to occur in the course of the termination of
employment").
25. In the present case, Ms. Montgomery was originally terminated as an "at will
employee" and no reason or justification was presented to her for the termination.
26. However, in response to Ms. Montgomery's request for a hearing on her
tennination, the mayor, on behalf of the Town gave several pretextual and post hoc justifications
for Ms. Montgomery's termination in a formal (non-confidential) letter which will be a part of
Ms. Montgomery's permanent employee file and presumably subject to future disclosure. The
letter was also published to the town attorney.
27. Among the new false allegations put forth, the Town accused Ms. Montgomery
of: creating a hostile work environment; lack of professionalism; acting outside the scope of her
position; impeding other employees from doing their work; failure to exercise reasonable
discretion; and failure to perform the requirements of her job. Exhibit 1.
28. The published dismissal letter goes on to assert that as an at will employee, Ms.
Montgomery's dismissal "is not subject to review or comment by Town Council or subject to
consideration in a public hearing."
29. As a deputy clerk, Ms. Montgomery was in a position oftrust and reliance as such
employment requires daily access to confidential and sensitive documents. Statements attacking
her work ethic, good judgment, lack of discretion and inability to perform her work duties will
severely impact her future job prospects and ability to work in her chosen field.
30. The Town further indicated the denial letter was false when it provided a contrary
letter from the Plaintiffs supervisor stating that Plaintiff was a model employee. Exhibit 2.
31. When the Town made false accusations against the Plaintiff in a written letter
made part of Ms. Montgomery's permanent employee file and published to other recipients with
no assurance of confidentiality, the Plaintiff was entitled to and denied an opportunity to address
those accusations and clear her name.
CLAIM II- Violation of Due Process - Property Interest
32. Plaintiffincorporates and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if
33. The Plaintiff, as a non-probationary public employee is entitled to a property
interest in her continued employment with the Town. "A nonprobationary ... public employee is
entitled to written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence,
and an opportunity to present his side of the story." Meiz v. Laramie County School Disi. 7, 173
P.3d 334, 343.(quoting Lucero v. Mathews,901 P.2d 1115(Wyo. 1995). "The notice of which
we speak is the same kind of notice that is due any public employee who has a property right in
continued employment, which includes tenured teachers, municipal judges, and any other
nonprobationary public employee." Id. (emphasis added).
34. Plaintiffs property interest is further bolstered by her long years of service and the
trust and reliance that accompanied her position. Despite the Town's assertion that she was an at
will employee with no property interest in continued employment^.
35. Pursuant to federal and state law:
The opportunity to be heard before a public employee's property interest

may be taken away goes hand in hand with the notice he must receive.
Constitutional due process requires that a public employee be afforded a
hearing wherein he may respond to the charges that are contained within
the notice before his constitutionally protected property interest may be
teiminated. This necessarily means that the public employee must be given
a real and meaningful opportunity to respond to every charge or allegation
that is being brought against him and which will be used as a cause for his
termination. If the public employee has not been given an opportunity to
respond to every allegation which is used against him as a cause for
termination of his property interest, then he has not been given a real and
^ This assertion may also be found in the personnel policy manual for the Town.
7
meaningful opportunity to be heard and, thus, he has been deprived of

constitutionally protected property without due process oflaw.
Metz V. Laramie County School Dist. 1, 2007 WY 166, 173 P.3d 334, 343 (2007)(citations
omitted).
36. The Wyoming Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have both
emphasized that a pre-termination hearing is of paramount importance as "the only meaningful
opportunity to invoke the discretion of the decision maker is likely to be before the tennination
takes effect." Id. at 342(citing Cleveland Board ofEducation v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 543,
105 S.Ct. 1487,84 L.Ed.2d 494(1985).
37. In short, the Plaintiff was constitutionally entitled to notice of the charges against
her, and an opportunity to be heard before being terminated. Further, she was also entitled to a
post-termination hearing.
38. In stark contrast, the Plaintiff was terminated in person by the Defendant, Nick
Paustian under the color of his authority as Town mayor without any notice and provided no
opportunity to be heard. She was also told that she was an at-will employee and not provided
any reason for her termination initially.
CLAIM III- Private Action Pursuant to 1983
40. Under state and federal law the Plaintiff has a cause of action against Defendants
Farmer and Paustian for acting under the color of their governmental authority when they
violated her rights as outlined above.
41. The Wyoming Supreme Court has held:

Aggrieved persons have a private cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
"the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution ..." by a person acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012); Garnett v. Coyle, 2001 WY 94,fl 16-17, 33 P.3d 114, 120(Wyo.
2001). This Court has concurrentjurisdiction with the federal courts over 42
U.S.C. § 1983 actions. Metz v. Laramie Cty. Sch. Dist. No. J, 2007 WY | 166,
28, 173 P.3d 334, 342(Wyo. 2007). "[Sjtate employment is generally
sufficient to render the defendant a state actor" so long as there is a nexus
between the employee's use of authority as a public employee and the alleged
constitutional violation. Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488,493 (10th Cir. 1995).
Wyoming Guardianship Corporation v. Wyoming State Hospital, 428 P.3d 424, at 4312018 WY
114,(Wyo. 2018)
42. As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to relief from the Defendants Paustian and
Farmer.
CLAIM IV Injunctive Relief
44. As the Town violated the Plaintiffs protected constitutional rights, the Plaintiff is
entitled to injunctive relief against the Town in the form of reinstatement to her previous position
and a discontinuation ofthe violation of her constitutional rights.
45. Injunctive relief against municipalities has long been accepted by the Tenth
Circuit in 1983 actions:
The instant action seeks equitable relief, not damages. The City insists that if
it is not a person covered by 1983 in damage actions, it is not such a person
with respect to actions for injunctive relief. The argument finds some support
in footnote 50 to the Monroe opinion, 365 U.S. 167, 191, 81 S.Ct. 473, n. 50.
We read that footnote as differentiating between actions for damages and
actions for equitable relief and as intending no bar to equitable actions for
injunctive relief against invasions of a plaintiffs federal constitutional rights
by municipal action. This view is supported 425 F.2d 1039 hy Adams v. City
ofPark Ridge,1 Cir., 293 F.2d 585, 587; Schnell v. City ofChicago,1 Cir.,
407 F.2d 1084, 1086; and United States v. City ofJackson, Mississippi, 5
Cir., 318 F.2d 1, 11. See also dissenting opinion of Judge Rives in Bailey v.
Patterson, S.D.Miss., 199 F.Supp. 595,614-615, vacated and remanded 369

U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. 549,7 L.Ed.ld 512. Here we have a corporation and an
individual representing a class claiming that their Fourteenth Amendment
rights have been denied. We see no reason why a municipality and its
employees may not be enjoined from acting in violation of those rights.
Daileyv. City ofLawfon, Oklahoma, A25 F.2d 1037,(Cir. 1970).
CLAIM V- Defamation
47. Wyoming reeognizes defamation as actionable. "A defamatory communication is
one which tends to hold the plaintiff up to hatred, contempt, ridieule or scorn or which causes
him to be shunned or avoided; one that tends to injure his reputation as to diminish the esteem,
respect, goodwill or confidence in which he is held." Tschirgi v. Lander Wyoming State Journal,
706 P.2d 1116, 1119(Wyo.1985). Accord Century Ready-Mix Co. v. Campbell County School
Dist., 816 P.2d 795,799(Wyo.1991).
48. Under Wyoming law, defamation per se means "a statement which is defamatory
on its face and,therefore, actionable without proof of special damages." Hoblyn v. Johnson, 55
P.3d 1219 at 1233.(quoting 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel and Slander § 134 at 430(1995).
49. Wyoming has held:
The only statements classified as defamatory per se or damaging on their

face, and which therefore do not require proof of special harm, are those
which impute(1)a criminal offense;(2)a loathsome disease;(3)a
matter incompatible with business, trade, profession, or office; or(4)
serious sexual misconduct.
Id.(citing 3 Restatement(Second)of Torts, supra at §§ 570, 575.).
50. In the present case, on or about September 2019, Defendant Paustian called a
town wide employee meeting which required the Plaintiff to attend.
10
51. During this meeting. Defendant Allred stood up in front of all of Ms.
Montgomery's coworkers and supervisors and made a series of false accusations against the
Plaintiff. Allred asserted that Plaintiff was sharing confidential or protected information with the
GPD;that she was starting rumors; that she was a troublemaker; that she was putting her nose
into other people's business and other comments intended to attack the Plaintiff.
52. On information and belief, this meeting was set up by Defendant Paustian and
Defendant Allred for the purpose of spreading false statements regarding the Plaintiff.
53. These statements directly related to the Plaintiffs work, work ethic, integrity and
trustworthiness and are incompatible with Plaintiffs employment.
54. Further the comments were intentionally malicious and may justify enhanced
damages.
CLAIM VI- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm
56. "The RESTATEMENT(SECOND)OF TORTS § 46 states:'One who by extreme
and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is
subject to liability for such emotional distress 'Leithead v. American Colloid Co., 721 P.2d
1059, 1065(Wyo.1986)(emphasis added).
57. "To recover under the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the
plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted in an extreme and outrageous manner and that the
defendant intentionally or recklessly caused the plaintiff severe emotional haim." Hoflund v.
Airport GolfClub, 105 P.3d 1079, 1089(citing Kanzler v. Renner, 937 P.2d at 1341 (Wyo.1997)
(citing R.D. v. W.H.,875 P.2d 26, 31 (Wyo.1994)).
11
58. Plaintiff suffered damages including loss of work, medical bills and humiliation
and is currently in treatment for job related stress stemming from the actions of Defendants.
59. Defendants' conduct as outlined above is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to
justify recovery for extreme and outrageous conduct.
DAMAGES
60. As a result of the above, the Plaintiff has suffered damages. Plaintiff is entitled to
damages as she has lost: employment income; overtime pay; vacation accrual and training;
deprivation of liberty; deprivation of property; retaliation; humiliation; stress and loss of
reputation.
61. Due to the actions ofthe Defendants the Plaintiff has suffered damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, including lost wages and benefits, lost economic potential, harm to
her reputation, emotional distress and incurrence of attorney's fees and other costs including
prejudgment interest.
62. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff is entitled by statute to recover her
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
63. Pursuant to her claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,the Plaintiff prays for relief of the court as follows:
1. For Judgment against Defendant in favor of Plaintiff sufficient to compensate her
for injuries caused by the unlawful actions of the Defendant as will be proved at trial;
2. For past wages, immediate reinstatement or where unfeasible, front pay, back pay,
benefits, future losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, loss of
12
enjoyment of life, prejudgment interest, all due to the Defendant's interference with Plaintiffs
constitutional and civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America
and state of Wyoming;
3. For punitive damages; and
4. For Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred herein pursuant to
federal and state law; and for such other relief this Court deems just and equitable in the
premises.
DATED this 'day of April, 2020.
Bruce S. A^W.S. B.# 5- 1739

Gregor/C Asay W.S.B. #5-7032
1812 Pebrican Ave.
Cheyenne, WY 82001
(307)632-2888
(307)632-2828 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
13
OMlRICi OF IVyOMhVG
|.g^
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

^nGARETGOi KiroXLOG.
ijOiKli''
CHEYFNnc;
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
KATHY MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff,
Docket No . 2J0cA/iji-cr
vs..
TOWN OF GUERNSEY,a Wyoming

municipal corporation, NICK PAUSTIAN,
as an individual and in his official capacity
as mayor of the Town of Guernsey, KATE
FARMER,as an individual and in her
official capacity as the clerk and treasurer
for the Town of Guernsey, MATT
ALFRED,as an individual and in his
official capacity as building inspector.
Defendants.
Demand for Jury
The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of six peers on all issues so triable.
Bruce S. Asa^ S. B.# 5- 1739

Gregory R^y W.S.B. #5-7032
1812 Pei^frt^n Ave.
Cheyenne, WY 82001
(307) 632-2888
(307)632-2828 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14
Verification
I, Kathy Montgomery of Oucinooy, Wyoming, have read the foregoing Complaint and
know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those
matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I
believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of negt le foregoing is true and correct.
ly Monf^omer^^^^
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged, subscribed, and sworn to before me

this day of -• ,202(^y Kathy Montgomery. .
k^AJ3^ CL- 1 Uy(jAAyl4J r
Notary Public
UU C. Wndwu - NOTARY PUBUC
My Commission Expires:
Mf CwnwiJwIaw Bxpim Oelebw f3,2033
Z.oz.'S
TOWN OF GUERNSEY
P.O. Box 667

81 W. Whalen St.
Guernsey, WY 82214
Phone(307)836-2335
Fax (307)836-2601
>v>v>v.towDofguernsevwv.us
February 12, 2020
Ms.Kathy Montgomery
P.O.Box 743
Guernsey WY 82214
Re: Denial of request for public meeting regarding termination of

employment
Dear Ms. Montgomery:
On behalf ofthe Town of Guemsey,I would like to thank you for your correspondence of
February 7, 2020 in which you requested a public meeting regarding the termination of
your employment with the Town of Guemsey. Your request indicates you would like to
address the Town Council to explain the circumstances surrounding your employment
and the termination thereof.
As Mayor, I have direct supervisory authority over Town of Guemsey employees.

Kindly be aware that the direct supervisory authority over Town of Guemsey emp oyees
in positions such as yours, does not extend to the members of the council. A t
appreciate the nature of your request, the council is not possessed with aut onty
would affect the circumstances the termination of your employment.
Additionally, the Town of Guemsey employee handbook does not ^^q\\

employees with the opportunity to challenge the termination of their emp o}
employees are classified as simply, "at-will". As such, I am your
jurisdictional authority to grant your request for a "public hearing meeting
discharge. As such, I have no other option than to deny your reques o
regarding the termination of your employment.
You were discharged from your employment on Februaiy 7/, 7020 for your
creating a hostile
position ana
work environment, lack of professionalism, acting outside the scope
Attachment 1
authority, impeding
exercise reasonable discretion in your position and failure to perform the requirements of
your position.
Regarding your request for a public meeting to address the Guernsey Town Council,
please refer to the following Wyoming statutory provisions, in relevant part:
W.S. §16-4-403. Meetings to be open; participation by public; minutes.
(a) All meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings, open to the
public at all times, except as otherwise provided. No action of a governing body of an
agency shall be taken except during a public meeting following notice of the meeting in
accordance with this act. Action taken at a meeting not in conformity with this act is null
and void and not merely voidable.
You have requested a public meeting. All meetings ofthe Guernsey Town Council
are public meetings and you may choose to appear at the next regularly scheduled
meeting occurring on February 18, 2020 at 6:00p.m.
You may request to be placed on the agenda to address the Town Council at the
meeting. However, the Council is not at liberty to respond to any issues regarding
your employment or the termination thereof in a public meeting as employment
issues are confidential
W.S. §6-4-405. Executive sessions.
(a)A governing body of an agency may hold executive sessions not open to the public:
(ii) To consider the appointment, employment, right to practice or dismissal of a public
officer, professional person or employee, or to hear complaints or charges brought against
an employee, professional person or officer, unless the employee, professional person or
officer requests a public hearing. The governing body may exclude from any public or
private hearing during the examination of a witness, any or all other witnesses in the
matter being investigated. Following the hearing or executive session, the goveining
body may deliberate on its decision in executive sessions;
Employment and personnel issues are confidential and may only be discussed in
executive sessions not open to the public. You have requested a "public hearing",
however your employment is "at-will" and is not subject to review or comment by
the Town Council or subject to consideration in a public hearing. As neither the
council members nor the IHayor is at liberty to discuss your employment or the
termination thereof and your requestfor a public hearing does not apply to at-
will employees, your requestfor a public hearing is denied.
We appreciate your years ofservice to the Town of Guernsey and wish you the very best
ofluck in your future endeavors.
Best regards, j Attachment 1.1

Nicholas Paustian
Mayor ofthe Town of Guernsey
cc: Personnel file

Town of Guernsey Attorney
Attachment 1.2
IOWN OF CTIEUNSEY
l\(>. Uo\ 6(»7

H\ NV. Wluilen S(.
(iuoruNi\Vi NVV 82214
IMuuic (307)830^2335
Viw (307)830 2001
usoywy.us
I'liiiny, Miuvh 15. 2019
To Whom II Miiy Concern:
Knthy MonlnomcM'y hns Iu'cmi oniplt>ye(.l willi the I own ol Guernsey since July of2007,the
lollowing eiipucity:
Coi)Ut.\' CJi'ii, Jujy 200Z- INvsenP 1 Iclps oi'giini/c, maintain and keep records of the local
go\'eriinK'iii'.s ongoing o\'onls and inlbrmalion. The Deputy Town Clerk prepares warrant
ivgistcr.s. piiN Toll, onleriiig (or all departments within the Town, She also handles telephone and
(iiperstni iiuiiilries Ironi (he puhlie. The Deputy Town Clerk may assume the role of the Town
('lerk iCslie is ahsenl or unahle to perlbrm her duties. Other duties as seen fit.
Kiilliy (i.ssi.sls Ihf Town ('lerk with Iniclgct preparation, prcpai'ing ordinances, and year-end
(ii'i'oiiiils piiyalile (iikI payroll, She is very knowledgeable with Federal, State and Local laws
perliiiiiiiig Id innnieipal government,
Kalhy Is a model employee, and a wonderful Town Clerk. Please feel free to contact me at(3071
sitould you require any lurthcr inrormation.
HcHt Regnrtis,
Kiile I'ltrnicr
j'Icck/Trensiirei
Town orCHiern.sey,
Attachment 2

Lawsuit - Kathy Montgomery Vs Town of Guernsey, Wyoming

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lawsuit - Kathy Montgomery Vs Town of Guernsey, Wyoming

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:20-cv-00061-ABJ Document 1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 19

ni- TR!C T C0U f? r

Attorneysfor Plaintijf, Kathy Montgomeiy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

TOWN OF GUERNSEY,a Wyoming

The Plaintiff, Kathy Montgomery (Plaintiff or Montgomery), by and through her

previously worked as the deputy clerk for the Town of Guernsey.

2. Ms. Montgomery, the Plaintiff, is a resident of Hartville, Platte County,

Guernsey ("Guernsey" or "Town").

3. The Town, Defendant, is a Wyoming municipal corporation situated in Platte

performance and ability.

relating to Plaintiffs job performance, ethical fortitude and ability.

Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiffs protected rights. Further, Farmer disseminated false

information relating to Plaintiffs job performance and ability.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. In her position as deputy clerk, Ms. Montgomery was directly supervised by

refused to move forward on any disciplinary action or further reporting.

bounds and creating a negative work atmosphere.

14. On January 5, 2020, Ms. Montgomery began medical treatments precipitated by

Montgomery that she was being accused of unethical behavior.

would likely need additional medical care.'

18. In response to her termination, Ms. Montgomery requested a hearing on her

Montgomery and her work for the Town.

19. Other facts will be discussed below as relevant.

CLAIM I- Violation of Due Process - Liberty Interest

fully set forth herein.

work in her chosen profession.

437, 91 S.Ct. 507, 510,27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971).

23. "[W]e explained that the dismissal of a government employee accompanied by a

626(internal citations omitted).

made statements which:

(1)impugned her "good name, reputation, honor, or integrity;"

26. However, in response to Ms. Montgomery's request for a hearing on her

letter was also published to the town attorney.

discretion; and failure to perform the requirements of her job. Exhibit 1.

consideration in a public hearing."

those accusations and clear her name.

CLAIM II- Violation of Due Process - Property Interest

32. Plaintiffincorporates and re-alleges each and every preceding allegation as if

fully set forth herein.

33. The Plaintiff, as a non-probationary public employee is entitled to a property

nonprobationary public employee." Id. (emphasis added).

will employee with no property interest in continued employment^.

35. Pursuant to federal and state law:

The opportunity to be heard before a public employee's property interest

meaningful opportunity to be heard and, thus, he has been deprived of

emphasized that a pre-termination hearing is of paramount importance as "the only meaningful

105 S.Ct. 1487,84 L.Ed.2d 494(1985).

any reason for her termination initially.

CLAIM III- Private Action Pursuant to 1983

fully set forth herein.

violated her rights as outlined above.

41. The Wyoming Supreme Court has held:

CLAIM IV Injunctive Relief

fully set forth herein.

and a discontinuation ofthe violation of her constitutional rights.

Circuit in 1983 actions:

Patterson, S.D.Miss., 199 F.Supp. 595,614-615, vacated and remanded 369

Daileyv. City ofLawfon, Oklahoma, A25 F.2d 1037,(Cir. 1970).

fully set forth herein.