Pennington County approves settlement with employee

by April Scheinoha Reporter Pennington County has settled a lawsuit with a Pennington County employee who accused the county of paying male coworkers at a higher salary range than her. Commissioners approved the agreement with Assistant Pennington County Attorney Kristin Hanson at their meeting Tuesday, April 23. At that time, the county also released all of its claims. After approving the agreement, commissioners immediately adjourned the meeting. The following day, the Northern Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the county for the executed agreement. County Coordinator Kevin Erickson provided it to the Northern Watch once he received it Tuesday, April 30. As part of the agreement, Hanson will be paid $36,901.23 minus applicable state taxes, federal taxes and FICA withholding. The county will also pay Hanson’s attorney $33,098.77 for attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, the county will also pay retired Judge John Borg for his mediation services provided on April 9. The agreement didn’t state the amount to be provided to Borg. Besides those monetary matters, the agreement stated that the county will increase Hanson’s salary to $132,980 retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024. Prior to the settlement, Hanson’s salary was $127,802.50, according to Erickson. Hanson didn’t respond to requests for comment regarding the settlement. The settlement came after multiple closed meetings during which commissioners discussed pending litigation involving an unnamed county employee. At that time, commissioners were meeting with County Attorney Seamus Duffy and lawyers from Pemberton Law, the latter represents the county in employment matters. Online federal court records indicated that the county and Hanson went through mediation Tuesday, April 9 when the settlement was reached. On April 27, 2023, Hanson filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, alleging that the county had violated the federal Equal Pay Act and Minnesota Equal Pay for Equal Work Law. In the lawsuit, she accused the county of paying male attorneys at a higher salary range starting in March 2020 and continuing through the filing date. Hanson alleged the male employees were paid more even though they had the same job duties and hers “required at least equal skill, effort and responsibility and she performed under the same or similar job conditions.” Hanson further alleged that the county hired the male attorneys at a market rate demanded by them instead of using the county wage scale. That scale had been applied to Hanson. The county’s Personnel Committee interviewed and recommended hiring the attorneys to the County Board. County Board approved their employment, but the wages were apparently set by the county’s Personnel Committee upon which two commissioners sit. Hanson alleged that, per the county’s wage scale, she received annual wage increases through the fifth year of her employment with the county. She noted that she had received cost-of-living adjustments for the bulk of her tenure. Specifically, Hanson alleged that a male attorney was hired in 2020 and was paid nearly equal to Hanson’s salary even though he only had three years of experience. At that time, Hanson had been working as an assistant county attorney for 13 years and practicing law for 23 years. The Northern Watch has determined that assistant county attorney was Max LaCoursiere, who has since left county employment for another job. Another male assistant county attorney was hired in January 2023. In her complaint, Hanson alleged he was paid nearly $20,000 more than she was paid. She further alleged that attorney “was paid a starting salary far above the top of the county’s wage scale rather than being placed at the starting rate of the wage scale.” The Northern Watch has determined that assistant county attorney to be Scott Collins. Hanson then sought a pay raise, which was initially denied by the Personnel Committee. However, it later agreed to a nominal raise, but Hanson objected since she believed she was facing gender discrimination. No explanation was provided as to how the Personnel Committee had set the male attorneys’ wages. After Hanson refused the nominal raise, she alleged the county gave her a raise that was still $4,500 behind Collins’ salary. Collins was then given a raise of nearly $10,000 without explanation even though he had been hired “at a starting rate far above what the county’s pay scale would have dictated. The male attorney had not asked for a raise and has been paid a salary far exceeding any formal pay scale.” At the time that the complaint was filed, Hanson sought a jury trial, appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest; liquidated damages equal to her back pay and pre-judgment interest; and an award of reasonable attorney fees. In its response, filed about a month later, the county denied the bulk of Hanson’s allegations. It indicated that the Personnel Committee negotiates starting pay with potential hires regardless of their gender. The county also noted Hanson “was given a starting salary above the starting rate of the wage scale when she began working for the county.” It noted she was given the above pay raise, but it denied the discrimination that she had alleged. The county said it “relied on factors other than sex in evaluating wages for employees.” In its response, the county sought a jury trial and dismissal of the complaint. It also sought its costs and disbursements related to the case. Since that time, County Board has met in closed session at least three times with Pemberton Law. It’s presumed those meetings were held to discuss the lawsuit since county officials only noted they were discussing pending litigation involving an unnamed county employee. Prior to approving the settlement April 23, commissioners met in closed session for about 15 minutes that morning. Upon reopening the meeting, they approved the settlement.