On March 27, Nate Brooksby resigned from his elected position as Washington County sheriff after allegations of sexual harassment and interference in an investigation. In late February, the Washington County Commission received an anonymous letter stating that he showed a “lack of moral standards and ethics” and had on at least one occasion sexually harassed a deputy’s spouse during a trip. The letter also alleged that Brooksby had interfered with an investigation into one of his deputy’s alleged misdeeds that resulted in the deputy being charged with unlawfully accessing, using, disclosing, or disseminating criminal investigation records. The letter ended up at the Utah Attorney General’s office, who concluded that there had been no criminal actions but recommended that the county hire an outside law firm to investigate possible ethics or policy violations.
The County Commission, in addition to the anonymous letter, received verbal complaints and met with the complainants on or around March 27. The commission determined there was sufficient evidence to warrant an outside investigator; however, Brooksby instead offered his resignation contingent upon receiving a severance payment. The county accepted his offer and entered into a separation agreement with him.
The agreement with Brooksby contained two noteworthy provisions: 1) That the county would “refrain from any further investigation into the allegation,” and 2) Mr. Brooksby was provided a $100,000 severance payment. Both provisions raised eyebrows, though the county justified the payment as being less than it would have paid in salary during an investigation into the allegations against the sheriff, let alone the cost of such an investigation, and would allow for a quick leadership transition. Brooksby was also an elected official, which provided him protections from termination. The county further noted that, after Brooksby agreed to resign, the complainants did not want an outside law firm to further investigate the matter.
Cost, contractual obligations, and practical or factual considerations go into determining the amount of severance, if any, a former employee receives. This is often primarily a business decision. However, affirmatively agreeing with a former employee not to investigate allegations of sexual harassment or unethical behavior is not a promise to be made lightly. Such a promise might interfere with an employer’s duty to investigate and maintain a workplace free from harassment and discrimination and could set an employer up for additional legal complaints. An attorney should be consulted when considering such a provision.
