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
Demotion

Orange County Attorney's Association, Wallace Wade, Guy Ormes, Constance Bailey v. County of Orange, Anthony Rackauckas

Published: Oct. 26, 2004 | Result Date: Jul. 1, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 02CC05089 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Philip H. Hickok

Court

L.A. Superior Norwalk


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Laurence S. Zakson

Marianne Reinhold


Defendant

Norman J. Watkins
(Lynberg & Watkins )

S. Frank Harrell Jr.
(Lynberg & Watkins APC)


Facts

Plaintiffs Wallace Wade, Guy Ormes and Constance Bailey were attorneys for the criminal division of the District Attorney's Office in Orange County. In 2002, Wade lost in the election for Orange County District Attorney. Ormes and Bailey had supported Wade's candidacy. After Anthony Rackauckas won the election, the plaintiffs were transferred from the criminal division to the family support division.

Result

On June 4, 2004, prior to the commencement of trial, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim under Labor Code Section 96(k) on the ground that Section 96 did not provide for a private right of action. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim under Labor Code Section 98.6 on the ground that the District Attorney's Office fell into exception in that statute for law enforcement agencies. At that time, the court also ruled that the plaintiffs had no tort claim under the California Constitution. On June 22, 2004, the court granted the defendants' motion for directed verdict for violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5. On June 24, 2004, the court granted the defendants' motion for directed verdict on the plaintiffs' claim under Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102, finding that these claims were, pursuant to Government Code Section 815, barred by sovereign immunity. Following trial, the court denied plaintiffs' request for injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs collectively demanded in excess of $3.5 million to settle the case.


#117670

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

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