Judge rules in favor of defendants in civil suit brought by Thompson-Widmer

A judge has ruled that Eddy, Foster and Wells counties and former interim social service director Kimberly Larson did not defame Carrie Thompson-Widmer or maliciously interfere with her ability to obtain new employment after she was placed on administrative leave and later resigned.

The saga began in January 2017 when Thompson-Widmer was placed on administrative leave after Larson filed complaints about her performance with the Tri-County Social Service Board and the State Board of Social Work Examiners. Larson alleged that Thompson-Widmer had falsified an abuse/neglect report and tampered with a government document.

Thompson-Widmer resigned from her position as Director of Social Services for Eddy, Foster and Wells counties and began applying for new jobs. After Thompson-Widmer’s resignation, Larson was appointed acting director of Eddy, Foster and Wells counties.

Thompson-Widmer filed suit against the three counties and Larson in May 2019. Thompson-Widmer sought damages in excess of $50,000 for reasonable costs and disbursements, attorney fees and any other costs that are just and equitable. She also demanded a jury trial.

A hearing in the case was held before District Judge Mark Blumer on March 3, 2020. On May 15, Blumer issued his written order. He ruled in favor of the defendants and their motion for summary judgement. Widmer, as a result, has been ordered to pay court fees of Kimberly Larson and the three counties. A total of $3,307.05 is owed to Larson and $2,259.30 to the counties for court fees at 8% interest.

Thompson-Widmer’s claim of defamation was based on the fact that Larson failed to enter certain information into the file, namely an email from Attorney Ashley Lies indicated that no formal charges were forthcoming and that the criminal investigation into Thompson-Widmer’s conduct had concluded. Thompson-Widmer further asserted that a letter from the State Board of Social Work indicating no action would be taken against her was also missing from the file, leaving an impression that the matter had not been resolved.

State law provides that a publication must be false and unprivileged in order to state a colorable claim of defamation whether grounded in libel or slander. He ruled that Larson did not defame Thompson-Widmer by providing her personnel file to prospective employers, as Larson asserted that such communications about a public employee’s job performance is privileged. “Privilege is based on the sound public policy that some communications are so socially important that the full and unrestricted exchange of information requires some latitude for mistake,” Blumer wrote. There is no evidence indicating that Larson provided Thompson-Widmer’s file to anyone that didn’t seek it as part of an open records request.

In regards to Thompson-Widmer’s claim of tortious interference with a business relationship, Blumer also found that she failed to provide adequate evidence. Thompson-Widmer was terminated after a new employer, Catholic Charities, requested a copy of her personnel file. The entity noted that there were still “pending ethical issues” that she had not disclosed in the interview, particularly that the State Board had not yet made a determination regarding Larson’s complaint against Thompson-Widmer.

According to the judge’s order, the termination letter was dated May 18, 2017. The State Board did not make its decision until May 30, 2017, and did not issue its letter of concern until June 16, 2017. Therefore, it was in fact true that there were pending ethical issues at the time of her termination.

Three other claims made by Thompson-Widmer were also dismissed due to her failure to provide evidence: vicarious liability (two counts) and negligent hiring by the County Defendants.

“For the reasons described above, the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are granted and Thompson-Widmer’s motion to file a claim of punitive damages against Larson is denied. Let judgment be entered accordingly dismissing Thompson-Widmer’s claims against all Defendants with prejudice,” Blumer concluded.

Thompson-Widmer does have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the N.D. Supreme Court. No such appeal had been filed as of press time Thursday.