Stebbins v. California Public Utilities Commission

Case Name: Stebbins v. California Public Utilities Commission

Type of Case: Wrongful termination

Court: San Francisco County

Judge(s): Judge Jeffrey S. Ross

Defense Lawyers: Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Suzanne Solomon, Nathan T. Jackson, Dana L. Burch

Plaintiff Lawyers: Cannata O'Toole Fickes & Olson LLP, Therese Y. Cannata, Mark P. Fickes

After the executive director of the California Public Utilities Commission, Alice Stebbins, was fired for violating state hiring rules, she sued for $4.8 million.

Stebbins alleged that her termination was in retaliation for having reported CPUC accounting failures. Stebbins v. California Public Utilities Commission, CGC-20-588148 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 4, 2020).

Nathan T. Jackson

Defense lawyers at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore obtained a complete defense victory despite challenges, including a potentially tainted jury pool and the prior administrative problems plaguing the commission.

"This was a David versus Goliath case, and when you're Goliath, you better have some good explanations for what you do," said Suzanne Solomon of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, the PUC's lead counsel.

Stebbins mounted an aggressive pretrial media campaign, Solomon said, and prospective jurors who Googled Stebbins' name while filling out a questionnaire saw as the top result a news article titled "She Noticed $200 Million Missing, Then She Was Fired."

Dana L. Burch

"Our challenge was all there in the headline, none of which was true," Solomon said, referring to Stebbins' claims that she'd been fired for reporting wrongdoing. "We were very concerned about what had seeped into jurors' minds."

To counter the plaintiff, Solomon and colleague Nathan T. Jackson put on the witness stand all five PUC commissioners. "They did an excellent job of showing they were hardworking public servants who hired Stebbins to clean up problem areas at the PUC, and that was apparent in the courtroom immediately," Solomon said.

A difficulty Stebbins never overcame was the paradox of her claim that she was fired for blowing the whistle on problems she'd been asked to fix. "She insisted she was let go for an improper motive, but it was hard to argue that she was being punished for doing what she was hired to do," Jackson said.

The defense also pointed out that Stebbins' claim that she was a whistleblower arose only after she was terminated. "That was a light bulb moment for the jury," Jackson said, adding that Solomon's closing argument highlighting what whistleblowing really means "really resonated" with the panel.

Stebbins was actually fired because she brought on numerous people she had worked with previously in violation of state merit in hiring principles, but refused to acknowledge she'd done anything wrong.

"The verdict was so important because people in government seeking promotions were prejudiced by these improper hiring procedures," Solomon said.

Stebbins has filed a pro se appeal. Her trial attorney, Therese Y. Cannata of Cannata, O'Toole, Fickes & Olson LLP, did not return a message seeking comment.

--John Roemer