Judge Affirms HRC Decision on NorVal Electric Sexual Harassment Case

District Judge Yvonne Laird either affirmed or modified four key findings from the Human Rights Commission’s decision in the sexual harassment case of Shalaine Lawson Vs. NorVal Electric Cooperative in late February.

In the Feb. 24 decision, Laird affirmed or reinforced every challenged aspect of the HRC’s findings that NorVal Electric and General Manager Craig Herbert sexually harassed Lawson, created a hostile work environment and retaliated against her once she filed a complaint with the HRC. Laird also affirmed the findings of emotional distress and the HRC’s award of $50,000 for damages.

The District Judge differed from the HRC in one key ruling however, by finding that the commission’s decision to cap an award to Lawson for front pay damages—or damages due to loss of potential future income—was “erroneous and capricious” and not based on legal precedent or the law. As a result, the judge modified the HRC’s decision increasing just the front pay damages to over $1,379,338. Combined with legal fees, interest, the emotional damages award and back pay damages of $202,496.60 that were not contested in the filing, NorVal will end up owing well over $1.6 million to Lawson and, depending on the final order from Laird, possibly more than $2 million once years of interest and attorney’s fees are factored in.

The original Office of Administrative Hearing’s decision awarded Lawson $671,806.46 before it was increased by the HRC $758,454.52.

Writing in her decision, the judge stated that “the facts in the record conclusively establish that Lawson was subjected to a hostile work environment.” She pointed not only to the actions of Herbert in harassing Lawson, but also to the fact that NorVal had no viable means of reporting the harassment, nor did the company take actions to discipline, prevent or protect Lawson once they became aware of the complaint.

“NorVal failed to discipline Herbert, who is still the general manager, and instead of protecting Lawson, NorVal punished her for opposing Herbert’s unlawful conduct,” wrote the judge.

The Montana Human Rights Commission had found through the course of their investigation in 2018 and 2019 that Herbert had made inappropriate comments to Lawson that were overtly sexual throughout much of 2017—even going so far as to comment on her appearance in her pants, pop her back and smell her hair, and insist that they meet in his hotel room on a business trip.

“Herbert’s sexual conduct was degrading and creepy,” wrote Laird, “and much of it was clearly intended to solicit sex from Lawson.”

Eventually, Lawson confronted Herbert and attempted to report the harassment to the NorVal board, but the board refused to receive the complaint and instead forced Lawson to report the harassment to Herbert himself. As a result, Lawson filed a complaint with the HRC and was promptly retaliated against by the company.

Judge Laird wrote, “Lawson was placed on unpaid leave, banned from NorVal’s facilities, forced to return NorVal property so that she could not perform her duties remotely, threatened with termination if she sought temporary employment while on unpaid leave, forced to comply with unreasonable requirements to extend her medical leave, reprimanded and defamed.”

At one point in her decision Laird called out NorVal’s board and attorney saying, “even though board members and NorVal’s attorney were aware of Lawson’s sexual harassment complaint, NorVal failed to even attempt a proper response.”

From here Laird will issue a court order to NorVal to pay the total amount of damages in the original HRC decision plus the amended findings mentioned above. Once that order is issued, NorVal and Lawson will be afforded an opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Asked for comment in the case, NorVal’s attorney Maxon Davis, said he disagreed with the Judge’s findings. He added that he anticipates NorVal will appeal the decision.

“You could say that I disagree with Judge Laird’s decision,” said Davis. “And NorVal has not made a decision, but I think an appeal is extremely likely.” He went on to add, “I disagree with Judge Laird, I respect her way of doing things, but that’s why we have appellate courts.”

Lawson’s attorney, Todd Shea, did not comment on the Judge’s decision.

Shea did file motions in district court consolidating the decisions made in the case so far and seeking attorney’s fees.

A separate federal case brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against NorVal is still pending before US District Judge Brian Morris in Great Falls. That case has the potential to bring further sanctions against NorVal Electric for violations of federal equal employment laws. A civil suit against the NorVal Board and NorVal’s attorney at the time of the harassment is also still pending in district court in Valley County.