Return to Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site

Return to Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
 
 

Zack Kucharski, Gilchrist Won't Get Job Back

Mike McWilliams, Judge Denies Bid to Get Job Back
 

The ruling was a significant setback for Mary Gilchrist. Lawyers for Gilchrist and the state disagreed over the finality of the decision.

Gilchrist was director of the state's health laboratory from 1995 until last Oct. 3, when she was fired.

Gilchrist claimed that U of I President Gary Fethke and Vice President Meredith Hay broke the state whistle-blower laws by firing her for speaking out about her opposition to plans to scale back the size of a new laboratory in Coralville.

Gilchrist said she felt the downsizing presented a public health threat - something she was obligated to convey to state officials.

However, District Judge Denver Dillard said Gilchrist's actions were lobbying, not whistle-blowing.

"While plaintiff's goals may represent a vision of an ideal laboratory second to none, they exceed the level of health and safety protection a reasonable person would expect to protect the health and safety of Iowans," Dillard wrote in the ruling.

"The plaintiff was attempting to usurp control from the president and vice president and operate as an independent department answerable only to the Board of Regents and the Legislature," he said.

Lawyers disagreed on whether the ruling amounts to a final decision in the case.

Dillard denied Gilchrist's request for an injunction to prevent the U of I from hiring a new director for the hygienic lab. The judge also rejected her request for reinstatement with back pay and benefits.

Not all of these points were discussed in two days of testimony this week, said Pat Ingram, Gilchrist's lawyer.

Further, Gilchrist has asked for a jury to hear her case, Ingram said.

Ingram will meet with Gilchrist next week to decide whether to appeal the ruling.

The attorney general's office believes Dillard ruled against all Gilchrist's claims, spokesman Bob Brammer said.

"The university and the attorney general take the position that this case is now concluded, except for any appeals," he said.

[Note: This material is copyright by The Gazette, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of The Gazette.]

  That meant the UI did not violate whistle-blower statutes when firing Gilchrist on Oct. 3, as Gilchrist claimed, Judge Denver Dillard ruled Friday.

  Gilchrist never was barred from making public statements or disagreeing with scaled-down plans for a new Hygienic Laboratory that UI officials approved, Dillard ruled after hearing testimony Feb. 8 and 12 in Johnson County District Court.

  But she lobbied public officials or legislators without approval, Dillard wrote.

  ‘‘The Plaintiff was attempting to usurp control from the president and vice president and operate as an independent department answerable only to the Board of Regents and Legislature,’’ Dillard wrote in his 15-page ruling, in which he also denied Gilchrist’s claims for back pay and benefits.

  ‘‘The record fails to show that the Plaintiff was doing anything other than pursuing her own agenda which had been rejected by the Vice President for Research and the President of the Universi-ty.’’

  Dillard concluded that Gilchrist’s continued efforts placed UI interim president Gary Fethke’s credibility in jeopardy and neutralized oversight of her department. Gilchrist, fired after 11 years as director, sought a reinstatement order while she sues the UI for wrongful termination.

  Fethke and Meredith Hay, UI vice president for research, claimed that Gilchrist didn’t qualify as a whistleblower because she didn’t raise specific health threats when objecting to UI plans for the new lab. Fethke and Hay are defendants in Gilchrist’s lawsuit.

  Gilchrist’s attorney, Pat Ingram of Iowa City, said Friday that he and Gilchrist will discuss next week how to proceed, including whether to appeal the ruling or proceed to the jury trial Gilchrist has requested.

  Bob Brammer, spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General’s office, which represented Fethke and Hay, said, ‘‘The University of Iowa and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office take the position this case is now concluded other than a possible appeal.’’

  Another state board might review Gilchrist’s actions.

  Charles Smithson, executive director and legal counsel for the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, said he plans to ask the board next month if it wants to investigate whether Gilchrist violated state lobbying laws while seeking funds for a new program and the lab. ‘‘I’m not saying anyone has done anything wrong,’’ Smithson said. ‘‘There just seemed to be accusations flying back and forth whether someone was lobbying. Part of our job is to make sure, for the past three years, anyone who is an executive branch lobbyist is registered.’’

[Note: This material is copyright by the Press-Citizen, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of the Iowa City Press-Citizen.]

In a 15-page ruling, Judge Denver Dillard wrote that Gilchrist was lobbying, not whistle-blowing, when she approached legislators and the Iowa state Board of Regents about funding for the new $36 million hygienic lab.

However, lawyers in the case differ on what Dillard's ruling means for the future of the lawsuit.

"While plaintiff's goals may represent a vision of an ideal laboratory second to none, they exceed the level of health and safety protection a reasonable person would expect to protect the health and safety of Iowans," Dillard wrote. "There is no showing of a threatened invasion of a right in this case be-cause the plaintiff has failed to show that she had a right to lobby public officials or legislators without approval."

Last month, Gilchrist filed a lawsuit against UI Interim President Gary Fethke and Meredith Hay, the UI vice president for research and Gilchrist's former boss. Gilchrist, who served as the lab's director since 1995, claimed she was fired Oct. 3 for whistle blowing about mismanagement of the lab by Fethke and Hay.

Gilchrist claimed the scaled-back plans for the Hygienic Lab, along with UI's reluctance to fund a rapid sample-testing program for the lab, put the health of Iowans at risk. Fethke and Hay broke the law when they muzzled Gilchrist for whistle-blowing her concerns to legislators and other public officials, Gilchrist claimed.

But Fethke and Hay said Gilchrist was merely lobbying legislators for more money for the project, something they repeatedly told her not to do and over which she was ultimately fired.

Fethke, Hay and Gilchrist all testified in Johnson County District Court last week and on Monday.

"Whistle-blowing is not: advocating for an ideal or best alternative versus an adequate alternative; a mechanism for a subordinate usurping control from a superior; nor is it a euphemism for insubordination," Dillard wrote. "The plaintiff continued her lobbying activities in direct defiance of repeated orders to stop. Her job status was not protected unless she was reporting their misbehavior."

On Friday, Gilchrist told the Press-Citizen she plans next week to discuss her options, including an appeal, with her lawyer, Pat Ingram of Iowa City. Gilchrist declined to say if she has started looking for other jobs.

"This is about the health of Iowans. This is about assuring that they have adequate support for that, and that issue is a crime in my mind," Gilchrist said. "I feel that I still want to try to help assure the health of Iowans, but we have options ahead of us."

Fethke did not return a phone message seeking comment. A phone call to Hay's office was referred to UI spokesman Steve Parrott.

"This thing might be appealed yet. We're just going to reserve comment for the time being," said Parrott, who said he was speaking on behalf of Fethke and Hay.

It was not clear what exactly Dillard's ruling means for the case. The original motion was for a preliminary injunction to reinstate Gilchrist in her job or prohibit UI from hiring another lab director while the case made its way through the courts.

Dillard did not indicate if his ruling was on a preliminary or permanent injunction.

"This is a ruling on a preliminary injunction, in my mind," Ingram said.

Iowa Attorney General's Office spokesman Bob Brammer said the office is pleased with Dillard's ruling.

"The university and the Attorney General take the position that this case is now concluded, other than the possibility of an appeal of this decision," Brammer said.