State Senate loses battle to squelch former staffer’s retaliation lawsuit

SACRAMENTO -- The state Senate has opted not to challenge a tentative ruling allowing a former employee's retaliation case to move forward.

The attorney for Adriana Ruelas hailed the Friday ruling by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge David I. Brown as a potential game changer for legislative employees in these types of cases. Brown found the Senate could not claim a type of governmental immunity for actions taken by its own employees. Ruelas v. California State Senate, 00230185 (Sac. Super. Ct., filed April 3, 2018).

"Now every worker who walks into the Capitol building knows and understands when they are told by the Legislature that, 'You don't have any legal rights, we are above the law,' that's not true," said Micha Star Liberty, the founder of Liberty Law Office in Oakland. "They can't be duped into waiving their rights."

A spokesperson for the Senate said it was policy to not comment on pending litigation.

Ruelas was the legislative director for Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia. In September 2017, she and two other staffers approached the Senate Rules Committee to report that Mendoza was harassing a young female staff member. They allege the meeting ended with all three staffers being fired and pressured into signing non-disclosure agreements in exchange for severance packages.

In her complaint, Ruelas alleged Mendoza repeatedly violated the agreement by denigrating her work performance and saying her firing was "a long time coming." This included multiple quotes from Mendoza in news reports.

Mendoza later resigned as the Senate was preparing a vote to expel him.

While Brown rejected some of Ruelas' claims, he allowed seven of them to go forward, largely due to Mendoza's statements. These include claims related to retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, defamation, slander and false light.

Brown rejected the idea that Mendoza's statements were mere opinion. Instead, the judge wrote, they represented the intentional publication of a set of facts the plaintiff should have the opportunity to show are false.

Liberty said a key point was Brown's dismissal of the state Senate's claim of immunity under the Government Tort Claims Act.

"Government Code section 815.2 provides that public employees are liable 'to the same extent as a private person and that the public employer is therefore vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of its employees occurring within the scope of their employment," Brown wrote.

This case is just one of several relating to sexual harassment in the Legislature that have landed in Brown's law and motion court in recent months. He has been repeatedly called on to determine the validity of various legal theories raised in a variety of #MeToo cases involving the Legislature.

Last week, he issued a tentative ruling allowing a defamation case against an accuser to go forward.

Brown found that accusations made by lobbyist Pamela Lopez against former Assemblyman Matt Dababneh at a December 2017 press conference were not protected, even though they mirrored claims she made in a report to the Legislature filed on the same day. Dababneh v. Lopez, 00238699 (Sacramento Super. Ct., filed Aug. 14, 2018).

Liberty said that case could represent a worrisome trend.

"A year after the #MeToo movement came to public attention, we are now seeing very aggressive responses by folks who have been accused," Liberty said. "The concern is that there will be a chilling impact and this is just more abusive behavior to attempt to silence victims."