Facts

Beginning on Oct. 5, 2006, plaintiff Norman Ryan was employed by defendant in the classified position of assistant director of fiscal operations and support at the Los Angeles County Office of Education. His employment was terminated on Feb. 2, 2007. Ryan sued the Los Angeles County Office of Education claiming, inter alia, wrongful termination and retaliation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that he was a whistleblower. He alleged that he found an illegality in a lease, which was in violation of federal standards and regulations; that because he brought this illegality to defendant's attention, he was fired in retaliation. The plaintiff claimed he was at all times competent to do his job and completed all tasks given to him.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that there was no illegality in the lease and that it was proper in all respects; and that plaintiff never brought the issue of an illegality in the lease to anyone's attention until after the decision to terminate him had been made. The defendant claimed that plaintiff could not have had a reasonable belief that there was any illegality in the lease because he never took any steps to determine whether the lease terms were in any way illegal or violated any federal regulations.

The defendant further contended that the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment was based solely on plaintiff's inability to perform his job in a satisfactory manner. From the first, the plaintiff failed to apply himself to his job. Instead, the plaintiff was involved in ventures outside his employment that took up considerable time, including running for re-election as a director of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD), as well as fulfilling his public duties as the director/treasurer of the WRD. The plaintiff did not inform the defendant that he was running a re-election campaign, or that if he were re-elected, he would have to devote time away from his new employment to perform his civic functions. During the initial several weeks of plaintiff's employment, he did not seek out the personnel or resources he needed to be successful in his job.

By early November 2006, the defendant had growing concerns that plaintiff was not focusing on priority issues. On Nov. 14, the plaintiff was given a list for priority items that required his immediate attention. The plaintiff did not complete many of the assigned tasks.

On Dec. 8, the defendant provided plaintiff with a performance review that addressed the concerns regarding plaintiff's unsatisfactory and unacceptable job performance. On the same day, the plaintiff finally began working on the list of priority items given to him weeks before.

On Dec. 21, the plaintiff responded to the performance evaluation and tried to explain away his inadequacies, claiming that he was not at fault. The plaintiff made his displeasure of the performance evaluation known to those around him. He stated to one employee that if he went down, he was going to take others with him.

Following receipt of plaintiff's response to the performance evaluation, the defendant determined that plaintiff was just not the appropriate person for the position; that plaintiff did not possess the managerial qualities and skills necessary for him to pass probation.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the plaintiff was placed on administrative leave pending his termination. However, between Jan. 12, and Jan. 22, the plaintiff enlisted the assistance of a few members of defendant's policy council and staff to prevent his termination. As a result, the plaintiff's termination was not approved and the process moved to an impasse. Through the impasse procedure in place, on Feb. 2, 2007, the defendant ultimately terminated the plaintiff's employment.

Settlement Discussions

In July 2008, the defendant was successful on a SLAPP motion. The court awarded defendant its attorney fees on the motion. The defendant offered to walk away from these fees for a dismissal of the action. Prior to the settlement conference, the plaintiff demanded approximately $138,000. Prior to trial, the plaintiff increased his demand to $450,000. The defendant continued to offer the walk away proposal through trial.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed economic damages in excess of $450,000, as well as unspecified emotional distress damages.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

The case did not settle at MSC. The defendant was awarded all costs and fees on its cost memorandum. FILING DATE: March 4, 2008.

Deliberation

one hour

Poll

9-3 (on the issue of reasonable cause under Labor Code Section 1102.5)

Length

three weeks