914 N.W.2d 827
Iowa2018Background
- Abraham Watkins, elected part-time Van Buren County Attorney, used a first-floor area of his family home as the county office; he employed a 20-year-old legal assistant (Jasmin Wallingford) and worked with part-time assistant county attorney Virginia Barchman.
- Wallingford resigned after listing ~55 complaints (including ~11 sexualized incidents): comments about her body, repeated questions about her genitals, showing nude photos/videos of Watkins’s wife, and occasions where Watkins appeared downstairs in underwear.
- The Van Buren County Board hired an outside lawyer as acting county attorney to initiate removal proceedings under Iowa Code chapter 66; the district court appointed that acting attorney to prosecute the petition.
- The State alleged five grounds for removal, but the district court removed Watkins solely on the ground of willful misconduct/maladministration for sexual harassment.
- The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the State proved willful misconduct/maladministration "in office" by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence and reversed, concluding the record did not show the requisite subjective "bad or evil purpose" or sufficient official‑capacity wrongdoing to warrant the drastic remedy of removal. The Court remanded for dismissal and award of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board could initiate removal by appointing an acting county attorney under §331.754(4) and have that attorney prosecute under §66.3/§66.12 | Board (State) used acting county attorney (Brown) to file petition; this procedure was authorized and practical | Watkins: only attorney general or county attorney (or five electors) may file; Board lacked authority to cause removal filing this way | Court declined to dismiss on initiation ground because the district court also appointed Brown under §66.12, so plaintiffs’ challenge failed on these facts |
| Whether Watkins’s conduct constituted "willful misconduct or maladministration in office" under §66.1A(2) (i.e., willful, with bad or evil purpose, and "in office") | State: repeated sexually harassing conduct (comments, photos, underwear incidents) created a hostile work environment and demonstrated willful misconduct in office | Watkins: many incidents occurred outside official duties or in social/familial contexts; conduct was thoughtless/insensitive, not done with a subjective evil purpose or within scope of official duties | Court reversed removal: evidence did not prove by clear, convincing, satisfactory evidence that Watkins acted willfully with an evil purpose or that the misconduct occurred within the scope of his official duties |
| Proper standard for assessing sexual misconduct in a removal proceeding—professional‑ethics, employment hostile‑work‑environment, or chapter 66 willfulness standard | State relied on professional‑conduct/harassment standards to show misconduct warranting removal | Watkins argued removal requires chapter‑66 willfulness standard (subjective intent, official capacity); professional/ Title VII standards are inapt for ouster | Court: chapter 66’s high, subjective willfulness standard governs removal; professional and employment standards are relevant context but insufficient alone to justify ouster |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees under §66.23 after reversal | State had multiple removal grounds; district court denied fees because not all claims were dismissed earlier | Watkins sought fees because petition will be dismissed in full on appeal | Held: Because appellate judgment vacates removal and remands for dismissal, Watkins is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable and necessary defense expenses (attorney fees) under §66.23; remand to determine amount |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Callaway, 268 N.W.2d 841 (Iowa 1978) (defines "willful misconduct" standard for removal and affirms removal where public‑official brutality showed willful misconduct)
- State v. Bartz, 224 N.W.2d 632 (Iowa 1974) (removal affirmed for supervisors whose misuse of county funds showed willful misconduct/maladministration)
- State ex rel. v. Meek, 127 N.W. 1023 (Iowa 1910) (discusses scope of willfulness and that removal targets grave misconduct that imperils public interest)
- State v. Roth, 144 N.W. 339 (Iowa 1913) (explains "willfully" requires intentional action with a bad or evil purpose contrary to known duty)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (supreme‑court framework for hostile‑work‑environment sexual harassment used for context on employment discrimination standards)