A civil lawsuit filed against Merrimack County’s administrative body and its top prosecutor contains unsubstantiated allegations that illustrate nothing more than a difference of philosophy between a supervisor and her employee, lawyers for the county are arguing.
As a result, the county and its elected County Attorney Robin Davis are asking a judge to dismiss the majority of claims brought by former sexual assault investigator Jennifer Adams, who alleges a hostile work environment. Her lawsuit, originally filed in August, has been narrowed to focus on three distinct complaints: wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference of a contractual relationship.
Attorneys K. Joshua Scott, who is representing the county, and Dona Feeney, who is representing Davis, have filed a motion to dismiss two of the three claims, arguing they do not meet the necessary legal thresholds to move forward. In effect, they are asking a judge to leave only the wrongful termination claim intact.
The two attorneys maintain Davis was acting within the scope of her employment and that her conduct was not intentionally reckless or ill-intentioned. They also contend that many of the allegations resulted from disagreements over policy and personnel decisions, which are not grounds for legal action.
“The allegations by Adams are nothing more than the complaints of an employee who disagreed with a new supervisor and are not sufficient as a matter of law to bring a cognizable claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress,” Scott and Feeney wrote in their motion to dismiss.
Adams, who began her career as a police officer in New Hampshire in 2004, said she landed her dream job as a full-time sexual assault investigator for the county in June 2015, and that she had planned to retire in that role if not forced out by Davis. She said she has always been thick-skinned but the hostile work environment created by Davis was too much for her – and many of her former colleagues – to bear.
Since Davis took over as county attorney in December, the office had experienced rapid staff turnover with several assistant prosecutors seeking employment opportunities elsewhere. Former staff members told the Monitor that the shift away from a victim-centered, team approach to prosecutions – including close collaboration with police – is what spurred their departures.
In an interview in August, Davis told the Monitor that some of the turmoil may have stemmed from a change in leadership style as she is more “hands on” than her predecessor, Scott Murray. She also cited her decision to eliminate the two part-time positions held by Susan Larrabee and George Stewart as a point of contention.
Both Larrabee and Stewart were members of a specialized team assigned primarily to sexual assault and child abuse prosecutions. The resignation of longtime prosecutor David Rotman in late December left only Adams and a victim-witness coordinator on the unit, which by that time had disbanded. Within months, Adams also tendered her resignation.
“Due to the actions of Robin Davis, I have been unable to serve the most vulnerable citizens who are victims of the worst crimes because our County Attorney has this victim-blaming, defense-oriented attitude and has abused, humiliated, berated and attacked me,” Adams wrote in her letter to Interim County Administrator Ross Cunningham. “She holds a great level of contempt towards law enforcement and me in particular. Because there is no way to resolve this I am forced to resign.”
The letter, dated Aug. 7, was delivered the same day as Adams filed her suit against the county and Davis. Adams is seeking back wages and health benefit costs, attorneys’ fees and compensatory damages and is asking for a jury trial.
Through her attorney, Charles Douglas, Adams filed in recent weeks an amended complaint against Davis and the county in Merrimack County Superior Court. In it, Douglas responds to the defendants’ assertions that certain claims are meritless and should be dismissed. He maintains that the case at hand is about “an elected official’s abuse of power” and asserts that Davis’s conduct was well beyond the scope of her professional responsibilities.
“The surrounding circumstances indicate that Davis’s abusive actions, which were misaligned with her role as County Attorney, stemmed from her personal beliefs as she communicated them in the workplace,” Douglas wrote. “Specifically, Davis asserted that she believes Merrimack County had no need for a trained sexual assault investigator to help local police departments with sex crimes, has shown a significant degree of animus toward police and – despite her role as Merrimack’s lead attorney for prosecuting criminal defendants – has taken an approach which discredits, demeans, and disbelieves victims of sex crimes all the while giving substantial deference to those charged with such crimes.”
Adams’s role in helping smaller police departments with the investigation of sexual assault cases was part of an interagency agreement drafted in 2015 to include the county attorney’s office, several law enforcement agencies, the Monadnock County Advocacy Center, the Crisis Center of Central New Hampshire, the Division for Children, Youth and Families, Concord Hospital and other partners. Their goal: “To work with others to take whatever steps are necessary to protect victims.”
Douglas said Adams used her expertise in interviewing young children, women and men who had been assaulted to assist more than 20 municipalities who are part of the agreement. She also trained new detectives working for smaller departments who don’t have the resources to build units or hire specialized staff.
In her role as county attorney, Davis openly questioned the role of the sexual assault unit and the strategies outlined in the interagency agreement, which required the work of multiple agencies. She told the Monitor that she thought it was better to spread sex assault prosecutions among attorneys because of the emotional toll the cases can take, as opposed to having one or two prosecutors handle them.
Adams said in her lawsuit that Davis also questioned the cost and “had trouble understanding why she had to pay so many people to participate in the team approach to these investigations.”
According to the lawsuit, Davis also questioned the handling of a high profile rape case by police, including decisions about victim interviews, the suspect’s arrest and bail, and publicity surrounding the case.
In an interview with the Monitor this summer, Davis, who was not then facing legal action, addressed concerns others had raised about her leadership style and her management decisions. She rejected the notion that she makes victim-blaming statements and said allegations that she is not prosecuting sexual assault cases are untrue.
Prior to bringing her case to court, Adams spoke on several occasions with the county’s human resources director about increased stress and anxiety she was experiencing since Davis had taken over as the top prosecutor.
On May 21, Adams’s husband also reached out to human resources to convey his concerns, to share the impact work stressors were having on the couple’s home life and to ask for immediate action, according to the amended lawsuit.
By mid-June, the situation had climaxed and Adams was placed on paid administrative leave. She had moved forward with a formal hostile work environment claim against Davis, prompting the county to hire Drummond Woodsum law firm to investigate.
Consultant Penelope Wheeler-Abbott spoke with 11 people who at the time worked for or with the office and concluded her investigation weeks later, finding evidence of hostile conduct by Davis.
“Ms. Davis’s behavior, on several occasions, has gone beyond what is generally acceptable workplace conduct when addressing performance concerns,” Wheeler-Abbott wrote in her report, dated July 3.
Wheeler-Abbott cited several issues deserving reflection and ongoing awareness.
“Although Ms. Davis acknowledges that the transition in the office has been difficult and that individuals, including Ms. Adams, have struggled with that change, she does not appear to harbor much empathy for or understanding of those struggling with the change, including Ms. Adams, nor does she appear to be reflecting on how any of her own actions may have contributed to Ms. Adams’ continuing discomfort,” Wheeler-Abbott concluded.
Soon after receiving the report, Cunningham and Human Resources Director Sarah Lewko requested a meeting with Adams. Through that conversation, Adams said she learned the county commissioners felt they had little control over the situation because Davis is an elected official. However, they still asked her to return to work and proposed a possible solution: Adams’s colleague, investigator Mike Russell, would be a go-between for Adams and Davis so they would not have to communicate directly.
Adams said she was not amendable to the proposal because it offered no solution to the hostile work environment that Wheeler-Abbott confirmed existed.
“This proposal highlighted for Ms. Adams all the ways in which she was treated differently than her male comparator solely because of her gender,” Douglas wrote in the amended complaint. “It was not a solution but, rather, a way to enable, condone, and allow Defendant Davis’s gender discrimination to continue.”
But within days, Adams again heard from county officials, who said they expected her to return to work on July 16. They told her many of her concerns were founded but that she still needed to return to her job, according to the lawsuit. This time, Cunningham and Lewko suggested that Adams work out of the former county courthouse across the street from the county prosecutor’s office so that she was still close by co-workers but away from Davis.
Adams again declined.
“This offer, presented as a solution to help Ms. Adams, was merely a punishment in disguise: Ms. Adams was effectively penalized for being the target of Defendant Davis’s workplace conduct and for raising complaints about such conduct,” the lawsuit states.
Adams said the county left her with no other option by late summer but to resign from her position and to seek recourse by filing suit.
In their motion to dismiss, the county says it tried to work with Adams to find a resolution.
“Though Merrimack County offered Adams’ potential resolutions to her complaints and remained willing to discuss alternatives, Adams spurned Merrimack County’s offers and resigned her employment,” Scott and Feeney wrote.
A judge has not yet ruled on the county’s motion to dismiss and no hearings have been scheduled.
(Alyssa Dandrea can be reached at 369-3319 or at adandrea@cmonitor.com.)