Retaliation Cases

<bold>1. Pleadings — judgment on — outside evidence</bold> <block_quote> There was no error where the trial court heard but did not consider matters outside the pleadings before entering a judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff initiated the introduction of evidence and may not now complain of the action she began. Moreover, receiving but not relying on evidence does not convert a motion for a judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment.</block_quote> <bold>2. Open Meetings — judgment on pleadings — no issue of fact</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by granting defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings on an Open Meetings claim arising from an employment decision. Taking plaintiff's allegations as true, no genuine issues of fact exist. Defendant properly entered a closed session and plaintiff's request that she be appointed to the position was beyond the court's authority under the Open Meetings Law.</block_quote> <bold>3. Pleadings — sanctions — improper purpose of action</bold> <block_quote> The trial court's order imposing Rule 11 sanctions following a dismissal on the pleadings was affirmed. The evidence supports findings that plaintiff was present when the alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law occurred, that she had a duty to inform the Board if it was acting improperly, and that plaintiff intentionally remained silent. The evidence further supports the conclusion<page_number>Page 101</page_number> sion that plaintiff filed this action not to vindicate her rights, but in retaliation for defendant's actions and to gain leverage in settlement negotiations.</block_quote> <bold>4. Pleadings — sanctions — attorney fees — government attorney</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees and costs to defendant as a Rule 11 sanction following a judgment on the pleadings for defendant in an Open Meetings case. Plaintiff produced no case law or evidence to sup