Facts

A former Los Angeles City Attorney sued the City of Los Angeles and 13 individual defendants for retaliation claiming that she was terminated for filing a complaint of gender discrimination during the prior administration and for complaining of subsequent retaliation. All 13 individual defendants were dismissed in pre-trial motions, including the City Attorney and former Chief Deputy City Attorney.

ACCORDING TO PLAINTIFF: In 1999, the plaintiff complained of discrimination and filed DFEH complaints against the City Attorney's Office, the City of Los Angeles, and various individuals employed with the City Attorney's Office. The City settled the plaintiff's DFEH complaint. Part of the terms of the settlement agreement provided that the plaintiff would be made supervising attorney of the newly created Hate Crimes Unit in the City Attorney's Office. After the plaintiff assumed her new position, she was not included in several important meetings relating to hate crimes, was not included in the drafting of hate crimes legislation for the office, and began receiving unwarranted criticism from her supervisors. The plaintiff complained that she was suffering retaliation, but nothing was done. Subsequently, the plaintiff complained about a Commissioner who took a probation violation matter off calendar because she did not appear in court by 9:22 a.m., even though she telephoned the court that she was running late and would be there. The Commissioner then complained about her to the City Attorney's Office. Upon receipt of the Commissioner's complaint, the City Attorney's Office placed the plaintiff on paid administrative leave and conducted an examination. However, the plaintiff was never interviewed when the investigation revealed that the initial complaint about the plaintiff was incorrect, the City attorney's office went seeking other complaint. The Office later provided the plaintiff with a list of charges of misconduct they alleged supported their decision to terminate her employment.

ACCORDING TO DEFENDANT: The plaintiff claimed that in 1999, a female co-worker left a threatening voicemail on her answering machine accusing her of badmouthing her to the U.S. Attorney's Office. In 2001, two years later, the co-worker was promoted to become the plaintiff's supervisor. The plaintiff then filed a complaint with the DFEH of gender discrimination against the City Attorney, the co-worker and several supervisors claiming that the co-worker should not have been promoted and that the City never investigated her complaints about the co-worker. The City Attorney agreed to settle those claims by making the plaintiff the supervisor of a unit of one overseeing the Hate Crime cases.

Several months later, a new City Attorney administration took over. In November 2001, the plaintiff failed to show up for a hearing that she had set for that day, claiming that she had been stuck in traffic. After learning that the matter had been taken off calendar, the plaintiff called up the court clerk extremely agitated and upset, claiming that the Court should have waited for her to appear in Court. During trial, the plaintiff admitted to accusing the bench officer of lying and telling the clerk that the Commissioner would have to answer to his Creator for his actions. A judge complained to the City Attorney's Office about the plaintiff's inappropriate conduct. An investigation launched by the Office of the City Attorney uncovered numerous complaints by other judges, court staff, colleagues and other professionals relating to the plaintiff's unprofessional conduct in and outside the courtroom. Following notice of her proposed-discharge, the plaintiff failed to appear at her Skelly meeting to dispute any of the charges against her or otherwise oppose the allegations against her.

After allowing the plaintiff over a year to appear at a Skelly meeting or respond in writing to the charges, the Skelly Officer made a recommendation to the City Attorney to terminate the plaintiff's employment which the City Attorney accepted. The plaintiff then filed for an administrative hearing under the City's charter to appeal her discharge, but ultimately withdrew the appeal, instead choosing to proceed with the pending litigation. The plaintiff claimed that her termination was in response to her complaints of gender discrimination under the prior administration and later complaints of retaliation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the charges filed against her ultimately were baseless or grossly exaggerated. The decision not to interview her was retaliatory and demonstrated that the Office had no real desire to find out the true facts. The plaintiff filed her civil complaint alleging that the acts by the City Attorney's Office up to and including termination were in retaliation for her earlier complaint and settlement agreement and complaints of retaliation, and that the charges and investigation into her complaints and the complaint made by the Commissioner were a sham.

At trial, the plaintiff called her union representative and attorney, Christine McCall, to testify on her behalf. She also called her mentor to testify, as well as another well-regarded city attorney who testified that she had been present during one of the court appearances for which the plaintiff was criticized, and that plaintiff act professionally. The plaintiff also called one former superior court judge who had held a contempt hearing against the plaintiff for allegedly threatening to deport a defendant if he did not plead guilty, and then decided he was incorrect.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the Office of the City Attorney (OCA), under a prior City Attorney, had tolerated the plaintiff's conduct by transferring her from division to division throughout her career following complaints regarding her conduct. In 2001, the former City Attorney agreed to settle the plaintiff's unmerited claim of gender discrimination with a promotion by a transfer. When the current City Attorney was elected, he launched an effort to raise the quality of lawyering in his office. After a hearing relating to a criminal misdemeanor was taken off calendar when she failed to appear for the hearing that she had noticed, she called up the Court Clerk and made comments regarding the judge including that he would "have to answer to his Maker" for his actions. An investigation launched by the OCA uncovered numerous complaints by other judges, court staff and other professionals relating to the plaintiff's unprofessional conduct in and outside the courtroom.

Following notice of her proposed discharge, the plaintiff failed to appear at her Skelly meeting to dispute any of the charges against her or otherwise oppose the allegations against her. After allowing the plaintiff over a year to appear at a Skelly meeting or respond in writing to the charges, the Skelly Officer made a recommendation to the City Attorney to terminate the plaintiff's employment which the City Attorney accepted. The plaintiff then filed for an administrative hearing under the City's charter to appeal her discharge, but ultimately withdrew the appeal, instead choosing to proceed with the pending litigation.

The defendant denied the plaintiff's retaliation allegations and contended that the plaintiff was terminated for engaging in conduct that reflected negatively on the professionalism of the OCA.

The defendant called a number of witnesses, including former supervisors throughout her career who all testified regarding the plaintiff's unprofessional conduct such as being excessively tardy for court, being disrespectful to judges, alienating colleagues and engaging in other conduct which reflected negatively on the professionalism of the Office of the City Attorney.

For example, an interpreter for the City testified that she witnessed the plaintiff berating a teenage witness or yelling at a teenage witness when he forgot his testimony at trial by yelling at him how could you forget your "F---ing" testimony in the middle of "F---ing" trial and that he had "F---ed everything up." Other colleagues testified that the plaintiff engaged in unprofessional conduct, including using insulting profanity against judges on a regular basis. One former supervisor testified that the plaintiff used the "F" word like the word "and." The witnesses' testimonies were to rebut plaintiff's direct examination testimony that the plaintiff never engaged in unprofessional conduct nor used profanity, except in private.

The Chief Deputy City Attorney also testified that it was the intent of the new administration to upgrade the professionalism of the attorneys in the City Attorney's Office. One of the defendant's witnesses, an expert on prosecutorial ethics, testified that the plaintiff was not qualified to be a prosecutor given the power and responsibility that are given to prosecutors. He cited to the testimony of the judges who had complained about the plaintiff, including one of the judges who testified that the plaintiff had engaged in vindictive prosecution with respect to one of her cases.

Settlement Discussions

A mediation was held before Susan W. Haldeman of Gregoria, Haldeman & Piazza. The case did not settle.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed lost earnings, both past and future, in the same amount ultimately awarded by the jury.

Result

The jury awarded plaintiff $248,036 in past earnings, $1,027,092 in future lost earnings, and $250,000 for past emotional distress. She received no money for future emotional distress. During closing arguments, plaintiff's attorney asked the jury to double or triple the lost-earnings figure.

Other Information

This case was moved to Orange County after the entire Los Angeles County Superior Court bench voluntarily recused itself. The defendant received no credit from the jury for any comparable employment in the future. In a pre-trial ruling, Judge Hayes excluded evidence relating to plaintiff's claim that the city retaliated against her by failing to convene the Special Committee on Investigative Oversight to investigate the plaintiff's claim of discrimination. The court concluded, among other things, that the plaintiff had not raised such issue in her operative complaint. The defendant has filed a Notice of Appeal.

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

11-1

Length

one month