A $2 million claim has been filed against Pima County and Sheriff Chris Nanos by his most recent political opponent, Heather Lappin, who claims interference with her right to a fair election.
Lappin, a Republican, lost the 2024 Sheriff’s race to Nanos by less than 500 votes.
The claim, a precursor to a lawsuit seeks a $2 million settlement.
Lappin says in the claim that her decision to run against her superior in the department was met with “egregious acts of retaliation.” That involved not only Nanos, but some of his “loyalists” in the department, said Lappin, who has worked for the agency for 18 years.
Three weeks prior to the election, Nanos placed Lappin on administrative after the department accused her of posting a photo on her campaign’s Facebook page showing a deputy “campaigning in uniform.” But the claim says retaliatory moves began shortly after Lappin announced her bid for sheriff, and it hasn’t stopped.
Lappin’s attorneys said their client has been placed under formal investigation by the department five times since she made her declaration to run against Nanos. Prior to her bid for the office, Lappin had been referred for investigation only once over an 18-year tenure with the department, her attorneys say.
Her admonishment over co-worker Sgt. Aaron Cross’ right to protest on Lappin’s behalf wearing clothing that resembled deputy attire and her alleged “collusion” with a local journalist to “pay” a jail inmate for interviews were fabricated to relieve her from her department duties during the campaign’s final stretch, the claim says. It also hampered Lappin’s ability to campaign.
The stress induced by the “unfair retaliation she faced at work, combined with the impossible task of trying to run an effective campaign for office while being confined to her home (as allegedly ordered while on paid leave) and being subject to a gag order” caused Lappin to begin to suffer “stress-related” health issues for which she sought the medical advice of a doctor, the claim says.
Among things Lappin says there are invasion of privacy, abuse of power, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as constitutional claims.
Nanos did not comment on the claim, citing the department’s procedure to not speak about pending litigation.
