The former manager of Montezuma County’s weed department is suing the county commissioners over her termination in 2023.
Bonnie Anderson, who had been named Weed Manager of the Year in 2022 by the Colorado Weed Management Association, says in the complaint that she was terminated “in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
She is being represented by attorney Thomas H. Mitchiner of Denver. The commission is represented by Sara L. Cook of Colorado Springs.
The lawsuit was filed in December in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The commissioners filed a response on Feb. 4 in which they deny the allegations of discriminatory treatment and say she was terminated for “legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.”
Both parties say they are seeking a jury trial.
When Anderson was its director, Montezuma County’s Noxious Weed Department became “the leading weed department in Colorado,” the complaint states.
“She really loved her job,” attorney Mitchiner told KSJD in a phone interview. “I’m impressed by how much she cares about Montezuma County. She wants it to run well.”
But after Anderson was terminated in October 2023, the commissioners reduced the entire weed department. According to reporting in the Cortez Journal, the county subsequently adopted a weed-management plan that was unacceptable to its six-member weed advisory board, all of whom then resigned.
The county’s federal-lands and natural-resources coordinator, James Dietrich, then absorbed the duties of the weed director.
County attorney Stephen Tarnowski declined to comment on the lawsuit, referring queries to the county’s PIO, Vicki Schaffer. She did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
According to the complaint, Anderson began working for the county in 2014 and was named director of the weed department in 2016. She reported directly to then-county administrator Melissa Brunner, the complaint says.
Brunner resigned in November 2018.
Shak Powers was the county administrator from December 2018 to June 2022, but isn’t mentioned in the complaint.
After he left, Travis Anderson was named administrator in July 2022. According to the complaint, he made Bonnie Anderson’s direct supervisor the head of the road and bridge department, Rob Englehart, and she met with Englehart weekly.
All of Bonnie Anderson’s employee evaluations were positive, the complaint says. It says some of her accomplishments included:
- Obtaining more than $1.5 million in grant/agreement funding for the county;
- Hosting a roundtable with U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert and state noxious-weed experts that led to the development of a federal pilot program for non-native phreatophyte management (non-native phreatophytes include salt cedar/tamarisk);
- Reducing by half the populations of five noxious-weed species in the county and eradicating one species.
She also wrote a monthly column about weeds for a local newspaper.
“Mrs. Anderson’s commitment to being a team player and drive for continuous self-improvement contributed to her success within Montezuma,” the complaint states.
However, according to the complaint, Travis Anderson began texting Bonnie Anderson outside working hours, and the texts often contained remarks about how he had previously worked with Bonnie Anderson’s husband when both men were employed by the Montezuma County Sheriff’s Office. She repeatedly told the county administrator she didn’t want to discuss her husband with him, the complaint says.
In the county’s reply to the complaint, it admits that the administrator and Bonnie Anderson sometimes communicated outside working hours, says the text messages “speak for themselves,” and denies other allegations related to the texts.
In November 2022, the county issued a proposed notice of discipline to Bonnie Anderson for subordination, according to the complaint, but withdrew the proposed notice after she “engaged in protected activity through counsel.”
The county admits in its reply that Travis Anderson issued a proposed notice of discipline and the county withdrew it “after Plaintiff retained an attorney.”
The complaint says the administrator later required Bonnie Anderson’s co-workers to tell him about conversations they had with her, threatened to terminate an employee who refused to comply, and threatened to terminate Bonnie Anderson if she spoke with those co-workers.
In its reply, the commission denies all the allegations about co-workers and their conversations with Bonnie Anderson.
Matters further deteriorated when the county’s budget process began in June 2023.
The county has struggled for several years with budget shortages. The commissioners have said repeatedly that declining property-tax revenues and unfunded state mandates are necessitating drastic reductions in budgets across most county departments.
In August 2023, administrator Anderson reportedly emailed department heads that the 2024 general-fund budget needed to be cut by about $1 million. Bonnie Anderson responded that her budget had already been significantly reduced and now consisted mostly of salaries, so she couldn’t find any more areas to cut.
More arguments over the budget continued.
According to the complaint, on Oct. 9, 2023, Travis Anderson informed Bonnie Anderson that the weed department might have to be dissolved and she would then have to reapply for her position through the Road and Bridge Department.
In its response to that allegation, the county says, “Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or to deny those allegations and therefore denies the same.”
On Oct. 10, 2023, according to the complaint, the administrator presented the proposed county budget for 2024 to the commissioners at their meeting, but left out additional cuts he had discussed with Bonnie Anderson as well as the budgets of three other departments.
She informed people with those departments about the omission, the complaint says. “Following Travis’ presentation, Mrs. Anderson emailed the CSU Extension Director, the Sheriff, and the Fairgrounds Manager, three County departments whose budgets were not included in the presentation, to inform them of the omission.”
Officials with those departments then contacted the administrator, the complaint says. “After hearing from Mrs. Anderson, the three Departments contacted Travis.”
The county admits in its reply that that is true.
Travis Anderson reportedly called Bonnie Anderson a few hours after the emails had been sent, requesting a meeting with her, and at the meeting, he terminated her. In its reply, the county admits those facts.
He told her she was being terminated “for sabotaging the Finance Department, the BOCC, and the administration,” the complaint says.
The reply says, “Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or to deny those allegations and therefore denies the same” in regard to the reasons the administrator gave for her termination.
She did not appeal the decision “because she felt it would be futile,” the complaint says.
A later incident involving bids for roadside spraying “further
demonstrates Montezuma’s retaliatory intent and how it would have been futile for Mrs. Anderson to appeal the termination,” the complaint states.
In 2024 (the specific date is not named), the county sought proposals for roadside spraying, and Bonnie Anderson submitted a bid. Only two bids were submitted, and hers was the lowest, the complaint says.
According to the complaint, she eventually was offered a contract for the spraying, but it contained a clause saying that “she, her husband, relatives, and friends could not make any social media posts about Montezuma” if she signed.
The county’s reply states that it’s true that the road department put out an “informal request” for the roadside spraying, that Bonnie Anderson submitted an “informal bid,” and that her bid was the lowest. It denies that she was given a contract and that it contained such a clause.
She ultimately was not awarded the contract, something to which both parties agree. “Defendant admits and affirmatively states that it did not award a contract to Plaintiff, nor was a contract awarded to anyone else,” the reply states.
The lawsuit says that Bonnie Anderson’s right to free speech was violated by the county. It says her informing other departments that they weren’t included in the budget for 2024 was protected First Amendment speech.
“Travis’s actions deprived Mrs. Anderson of her right under the United States Constitution to speak as a citizen on matters of public concern without being retaliated against,” the complaint states.
“It’s an obvious violation of the First Amendment,” Mitchiner told KSJD. “Even as an employee, she has the right to speak on matters of public concern. Whether the CSU Extension is funded, the sheriff’s office is funded, the fairgrounds is funded – those are matters of public concern. She took these acts as a citizen concerned about the budget.”
The complaint states that the county “has an official policy or widespread or longstanding practice or custom of preventing employee speech, and that practice is closely related to Mrs. Anderson’s retaliatory termination that, it was the cause of the ultimate injury.”
The board denies that in the reply.
The complaint also alleges that the county violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Mrs. Anderson engaged in Title VII protected activities by (1) opposing
Travis’ offensive, unwelcome, sex-based, discriminatory conduct and comments directed against her; and (2) participating in protected conduct by complaining to Montezuma concerning the sex-based discriminatory conduct and comments directed against her.”
The complaint seeks compensation for back pay, loss of benefits, attorney’s fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and “compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages as allowed by law.”
Mitchiner told KSJD that Bonnie Anderson, who now offers private weed-management services, was a knowledgeable and enthusiastic worker.
“She knew a lot about it and took a lot of action. She was very proactive,” Mitchiner said. “She got me excited about weeds.”
