This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Retaliation
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Kelly O'Haire v. City and County of San Francisco, Greg Suhr, and Does 1 through 100

Published: Aug. 8, 2015 | Result Date: Apr. 24, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CGC-13-531419 Settlement –  $725,000

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Randall E. Strauss
(Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer APC)

Jayme L. Burns


Defendant

Jonathan C. Rolnick
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Dennis J. Herrera
(San Francisco Public Utilities Commission)

Elizabeth S. Salveson
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Facts

Kelly O'Haire sued the City and County of San Francisco and Greg Suhr, in connection with the termination of her employment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff was an internal affairs attorney for the San Francisco Police Dept. She handled a discipline case filed against Deputy Chief Greg Suhr and reported to her supervisors that she believed defendant had violated the law. She also sought to terminate defendant by unveiling defendant's history of misconduct before the Police Commission. However, the District Attorney instead settled Suhr's case with a five-day suspension. Then, soon after the mayor appointed Suhr as Chief of Police, Suhr fired plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that her firing was retaliatory for being a whistleblower. As such, she sued defendants for violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied plaintiff's allegations, denying that plaintiff was a whistleblower. Defendants also contended that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and that her position had been eliminated due to budget constraints.

Result

The parties ultimately settled the dispute for $725,000.


#105139

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390