Sharon R. Hammer v. City of Sun Valley, 414 P.3d 1178

Sharon Hammer was City Administrator for Sun Valley under a written employment agreement providing severance for termination without cause, conditioned on signing a release.
After disputes and investigations, Hammer was placed on leave, sued the City, later voluntarily dismissed that suit, and then was terminated by a unanimous council vote in January 2012.
Hammer executed a Supplemental Release drafted by her husband and received the contractual severance payment; the Supplemental Release referenced Section 3.A of the Employment Agreement and released the City for claims defined there.
Hammer later sued under the Idaho Protection of Public Employees Act (IPPEA), alleging retaliatory discharge; the district court granted summary judgment for the City and dismissed individual defendants.
The district court found the Supplemental Release barred Hammer’s claim against the City and held the IPPEA does not create individual liability for city officials; Hammer appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Supplemental Release bars Hammer’s IPPEA claim against the City	Release ambiguous / severance was for past services so no consideration for release	Release unambiguous; severance was consideration for release of all claims as provided in Section 3.A	Release is clear and bars Hammer’s claim against the City; summary judgment affirmed
Whether extrinsic evidence (intent) can alter the unambiguous release	Extrinsic evidence shows parties did not intend to waive IPPEA claims	Parol evidence rule bars extrinsic evidence for an unambiguous integrated agreement	Parol evidence inadmissible; parties’ plain words control; issue waived on appeal when not properly challenged
Whether the IPPEA permits claims for adverse actions occurring after termination	Post-termination conduct falls within IPPEA protection	IPPEA protects employees; after termination Hammer was not an employee so statute doesn’t apply	IPPEA applies to actions affecting employment; Hammer cannot sue under IPPEA for post-termination acts
Whether the IPPEA creates individual liability for supervisory officials	IPPEA definitions and venue provision imply individual liability	Statute’s structure, remedies, and legislative context show liability is against the governmental entity, not individuals	IPPEA does not create individual liability for agents or officials; dismissal of individual defendants affirmed

Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45 (summary judgment standard and inferences) (explains summary judgment review)
Parker v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 140 Idaho 517 (consideration for severance-release agreements and interpretation of ‘‘severance pay’’)
City of Idaho Falls v. Home Indem. Co., 126 Idaho 604 (contract interpretation; plain meaning controls)
Lindberg v. Roseth, 137 Idaho 222 (parol evidence rule for integrated, unambiguous agreements)
Holve v. Draper, 95 Idaho 193 (release is complete abandonment of cause of action)
Cabinet for Families & Children v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2005) (statutory "agent" language interpreted to impose respondeat superior, not individual liability)
De Armas v. Ross, 680 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (remedies under whistleblower statute run against entity, not individuals)
Block v. City of Lewiston, 156 Idaho 484 (attorney-fee statute under a specific statutory scheme is exclusive)