Talk about petty. A Deputy Sheriff in South Dakota who had just been elected Sheriff was fired from his job one minute after polls closed.
A temporary problem at worst, but still some issues for his family, particularly the lapse in health insurance. From the feedback, I don’t think that outgoing sheriff will be employable in that county and should plan on moving.
I guess the current sheriff is not hoping for a job with the new administration.
The Independent is reporting that the election was to choose the Republican candidate, and was not the actual election for sheriff. Which is correct?
The original linked article says;
*Maggs, a deputy with the Bon Homme County Sheriff’s Office, ran against current sheriff Lenny Gramkow for the top position. The men were the only two running for office, and Maggs’ victory will get him a four-year term as sheriff starting in January. *
So he’s unemployed from June to January.
Judging by the timeline, the current sheriff was hoping to be re-elected. The notice went out after the polls closed but before the results were in.
The article you linked later says there were no other candidates, so the Republican primary winner is automatically the overall winner.
Not automatically, they still need to hold an election in the Fall.
Ah, I misunderstood that line to mean that there were no other candidates in the primary election. But maybe another candidate will come forward before the election?
I just checked. The filing date for independents was before the primary and South Dakota does not allow write in votes. Nobody else can come forward.
I am reasonably certain this is not the case. I think that anyone who wanted to be in the election would have to already have filed.
ETA: And i was ninja’d.
The above is correct. Since there aren’t any candidates from other parties running, the winner of the Republican primary becomes Sheriff and an election is not held in November. The same thing happened in my county. It hardly seems fair but that’s the way it is. Even if there was another party candidate and an election was held in November, the Republican would more than likely have won anyway because South Dakota is a very Republican state.
Would local law allow him to sue for unfair dismissal?
The article garbles it a little*, but it sounds like he was an at-will employee, so probably not. It’s illegal to discriminate against employees based on political activity in some states, but it doesn’t look like it is in South Dakota.
It calls it “right-to-work,” which is a common error. Right-to-work is something else.
The deputy might have some basis to protest his firing, arguing it was based on retaliation, but I am not a lawyer and can’t say for sure.
Since he was threatened with termination upon telling his boss that he was filing for the position, he may have a strong case that this is simple retaliation.
Anyone else picturing Deputy Fife? “Waaaallll, that’s just not fair!”
Maybe his supporters will find the deputy a temp job? Perhaps working in a store, driving a truck, or construction.
It would bring in much needed income until Jan.
His insurance probably won’t lapse. It may end on the last day of the month he was terminated and if he gets rehired during the same month they can probably cancel the cancellation. Also, assuming it’s decided that he will become Sheriff, they could probably just transfer him elsewhere in the county, if for no other reason, to keep his payroll/pension/insurance/seniority in tact.
But, in any case, he should be able to switch to COBRA and pony up the money for the premium until he can enroll again. It should be 90 days at most.