Leelanau County’s investigation into two separate complaints against the county — one alleging wage law violations, the other alleging a sex-based hostile work environment — has concluded, according to letters sent by the county’s outside counsel July 14 obtained by the Enterprise this week.
The findings were presented to the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners on July 9.
The Lansing law firm Cohl, Stoker & Toskey, P.C. conducted the review on the county’s behalf and sent separate letters to the two complainants: Rio Risbridger, the county’s finance director, and Elizabeth Gray, a former county employee.
Both letters were signed by attorney Sarah K. Osburn and copied to Board Chair Steve Yoder and Human Resources Manager Jennifer Kain.
Risbridger filed a written complaint with the Board invoking the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, raising concerns about wage payment procedures, benefit deductions, delinquent invoices, credit-card controls, contract issues, and the absence of an adequate transition plan. This resulted in Leelanau County Administrator Jim Dyer’s placement on adminstrative leave June 9, one day after the complaint was submitted.
The review found that certain of those concerns constituted protected activity under the WPA and identified potential compliance issues under the Michigan Wage and Fringe Benefits Act, “including concerns regarding final paycheck and wage deduction practices,” Osburn wrote.
“The information gathered supported certain of the concerns described,” according to the letter. The review also flagged separate operational, communication, governance and employee-relations concerns that “may present risk to the County” but don’t necessarily amount to legal violations. The county said some of those issues were already addressed before the review concluded.
Gray complaint
Elizabeth Gray submitted a letter March 9 after her employment with the county ended. She alleged a hostile work environment and disparate treatment tied to “the treatment of female employees in leadership positions” at the county, according to Osburn’s letter.
Investigators interviewed 22 witnesses. The review concluded the evidence “did not support a finding that the alleged conduct constituted a sex-based hostile work environment or disparate treatment because of sex.”
As with the Risbridger complaint, the review separately identified “workplace climate, communication, governance, and employee-relations concerns,” which were documented in a full investigative report given to the Board.
That report itself was not made public until this publication
Both letters state the county prohibits retaliation against current or former employees for reporting concerns or participating in the investigation.
