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
Wrongful Termination
Conspiracy

Eric M. Grossman, Russell W. Hauck v. City of Glendale, Dave Ahern, George Chapjian

Published: Mar. 29, 2014 | Result Date: May 7, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:11-cv-06284-MMM-JCG Verdict –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven M. Cischke

Solomon E. Gresen
(RG Lawyers LLP)


Defendant

Ann M. Maurer

Andrew C. Rawcliffe
(Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley PC)


Facts

Eric Grossman and Russell Hauck sued the City of Glendale, Dave Ahern, and George Chapjian in connection with their employment with the city.

Plaintiffs were assigned to Glendale's Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Service. The individual defendants, also city employees with Parks and Recreation, were either directors or assistant directors of the department.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Hauck began working for the city in 1992 as a Park Ranger Supervisor. He contended that defendants conspired to terminate him after he aired concerns related to public safety matters during a Glendale City Council meeting.

Grossman began working for the city in 1996 as a Park Ranger. Hauck was Grossman's direct supervisor. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants conspired to terminate Hauck, and enlisted plaintiff to keep an eye on Hauck, in an attempt to find a reason for terminating him. Later, Grossman reported Ahern's suspected misuse of a city-owned vehicle, and claimed that since then, defendants began retaliating against him. For example, defendants gave him conflicting job assignments, and subjected him to unwarranted ridicule and humiliation.

Plaintiffs contended they were eventually fired from their jobs. Plaintiffs contended that they were fired in retaliation for airing their complaints. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for wrongful termination and conspiracy.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not fired, and that they were laid off due to documented budget cuts.

Result

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendants.


#84703

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

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