Employment Attorney Calls St. Paul Mayor Scandal 'Big Mess with a Capital M', Here's Why

The phone rings. A reporter asks a simple question. Marshall Tanick, a man who has spent decades watching workplaces fall apart, answers with a phrase that sticks. "A big mess with a capital M." He does not hedge. He does not soften it. The veteran employment attorney looked at the sexual harassment lawsuit against St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her and called it what it is.

This is not a story about politics. Strip that away. What remains is a workplace. Two leaders. A broken relationship. A 73-page report. A lawsuit. And a bill that someone will pay.

The investigation is over. The report is public. The lawsuit is filed. What comes next is where things get interesting.

What the Investigation Actually Found

The city hired an outside law firm. Resolute Law, based in St. Cloud, spent months digging. They interviewed witnesses. They read messages. They looked at photographs. The report landed on desks on a Thursday in early October. It runs 73 pages. Much of it is redacted. Names are blacked out. Whole paragraphs disappear behind thick lines of ink.

The findings are specific. Mayor Her touched Police Chief Axel Henry's leg twice during a budget meeting. One witness said her hand moved approximately 40% up his leg the first time. Then 60% the second time. Her told investigators she might have touched his leg. She said it was not sexual.

The report also confirms she created and shared inappropriate photographs. She photoshopped police officers' faces onto shirtless bodybuilders. She posted them around the police department. The report notes that if a male mayor had done the same thing to female officers, no one would question the inappropriateness.

Henry's lawsuit goes further. He claims she referred to herself as a "MILF." He says she made comments about the size of his genitals. He says she made sexual noises at the police gym. He says she photoshopped his head onto UFC fighters and boy band members.

The investigation did not substantiate sexual harassment. It found "offensive and inappropriate behavior." That distinction matters. It matters more than most people realize.

Why the Wording Matters in Court

Marshall Tanick knows employment law. He has watched cases rise and fall on a single word. He says the report's phrasing was deliberate. "It's a euphemism for saying the individual should not have done what they did, but it stops short of saying 'sexual harassment' because it does not want to give the person who is the victim of the harassment an entrée to pursue a lawsuit," he told FOX 9.

Think of it this way. The investigation operates under city policy. A courtroom operates under state and federal law. They are not the same thing. The report is not a legal finding. Investigators looked at whether Her violated workplace conduct rules. They did not apply statutes. They made no reference to state law.

Tanick says if investigators had used the term "sexual harassment" outright, Henry would have had a much stronger case. "Had they used the term 'sexual harassment,' the claimant then, Chief Henry, would have a slam dunk. He still has a fairly easy case. It's a layup, but not a slam dunk," he said.

That is the crux. The city's findings do not prevent Henry from pursuing his claims in court. Tanick said the fact that Her was cleared in the investigation is of very little value to her defense.

Henry now carries the burden. He must prove the conduct was unwelcome. He must show it negatively affected him. He must demonstrate it interfered with his ability to do his job. That is the legal standard. It is not about whether the behavior was rude. It is about whether it created a hostile environment that made work impossible.

The Taxpayer Tab

Here is the part no one wants to talk about. The money.

The St. Paul City Council voted to use taxpayer money to pay for Mayor Her's legal defense. The rate: up to $500 per hour for private legal counsel. The outside investigation itself cost the city nearly $44,000. Resolute Law charged $290 per hour for attorneys and $180 per hour for paralegals.

Tanick says the lawsuit settlement will be expensive. "The tab for the St. Paul taxpayers is going to be high," he said. "The elements of this case here would suggest that it will be a six-figure settlement, and a very high six-figure settlement. It comes from the taxpayers".

He does not expect the case to go to trial. He expects a settlement before the end of the year. That means more legal fees. More billable hours. More money pulled from city coffers.

This is how workplace disputes end. Not with a verdict. With a check. And the people who write that check are the ones who had nothing to do with the behavior in the first place.

What Comes Next

Tanick says Henry's lawsuit may not be the only one. The allegations involve other city employees. "This is not a one-off case. This is the beginning of a series of cases that may occur," he said.

Other officers could come forward. Other employees could file claims. Tanick said that in these kinds of cases, it is not unusual for other employees to jump on the bandwagon.

The retaliation claim adds another layer. Tanick called retaliation the single most common claim in employment lawsuits. A jury could decide the mayor did not commit sexual harassment but that she did retaliate. The claims are evaluated separately.

There is also the question of the full investigative report. The version released to the public is heavily redacted. The lawsuit seeks access to the complete document. Tanick said a legal battle over what records are produced and what information may be redacted could become a significant part of the case. The city will likely fight to keep certain material private under the Data Practices Act. But in a lawsuit, it can be subpoenaed.

The mayor's spokesman said she will vigorously defend against the lawsuit claims through the court system. Henry's attorney, Chris Madel, called Her "delusional" and said council members must call for her immediate resignation. "If they don't, they condone sexual harassment. It's pretty simple," he said.

The Workplace Behind the Headlines

Step back from the legal filings. Look at the workplace itself.

Her told investigators her relationship with Henry started well. She believed they were friends. They smoked cigars. He invited her to a golf simulator. Then they argued about the police department's response to Operation Metro Surge. The relationship went downhill from there.

The report describes a crumbling work environment. Her and Henry now communicate through an intermediary. Investigators wrote that this arrangement is "not a sustainable solution as it does not allow for a free flow of dialogue between these two important City leaders".

Witnesses described discomfort. Women said Her's discussions about breasts made them uncomfortable. One person received a "Wiener Wednesday" meme and thought it was funny. Another witness saw the leg touching and said it was uncomfortable.

The report includes Her's side. She said Henry made uncomfortable comments about her body and her clothes. She chose not to report them. She said her disagreements with the police department escalated as she dug into budgets and spending.

This is what a broken workplace looks like. It is not a single moment. It is a series of moments. Small comments. Uncomfortable touches. Photos passed around. A friendship that sours. A power dynamic that shifts. And then a lawsuit.

The Bigger Picture for Employers

Marshall Tanick is not just talking about St. Paul. He is talking about every workplace that has ever let things slide.

The St. Paul case offers a clear lesson. Policy is not law. An internal investigation can clear someone of wrongdoing under company rules. A courtroom applies a different standard. The gap between those two worlds is where settlements live.

Employers watch cases like this and wonder what they should do. The answer is not complicated. It is just uncomfortable. Address behavior early. Document everything. Do not wait for a lawsuit to take complaints seriously. The cost of waiting is measured in legal fees and taxpayer dollars.

The report found that Her's conduct was offensive and inappropriate. It did not find sexual harassment. But the lawsuit continues. The settlement will come. The taxpayers will pay. And the workplace will remain broken.

Tanick called it a big mess with a capital M. He was not exaggerating. He was describing a situation where the legal system, the political system, and the human system all collide. And when they collide, someone always pays.

The question is not whether this will end. It will. The question is what it will cost. And who will be left to clean up the mess.