Facts

Suzanne Owsley was a long-time employee at the Eureka Police Department. She allegedly began experiencing harassment around Dec. 14, 2007, after she received a text message from former Chief Garr Nielsen. The text message was intended for EPD Communications Supervisor Tawnie Hansen. Nielsen denied having sent Owsley the message, and when word came out about the text message, it quickly spread through the office and fueled an already existing speculation that Nielsen and Hansen were involved in a relationship.

Nielsen's contract was terminated without cause, allegedly due to differences in management style.

Owsley thereafter sued the City of Eureka alleging sexual harassment and retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the FEHA.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that Nielsen carried out a campaign of harassment that spanned several months. Plaintiff further contended that the Chief added an addendum to her performance review which disagreed with the favorable ratings given to her by her supervisor. Moreover, she contended she was barred from setting foot on EPD property without proper escort, and she was assigned demeaning duties, including cleaning the women's locker room.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that Chief Nielsen came to the police department to make much needed internal changes in the department. Some of those changes involved reassignments of personnel, to which some objected. Defendants contended that Owsley didn't like the supervisor to whom the Chief assigned her and didn't like the changes in her job assignments the Chief made. Owsley claimed that she engaged in "protected activity" when she reported receiving a non-sexual text message from the Chief. The City denied that Owsley engaged in any "protected activity" and further denied that Owsley was subjected to any retaliatory actions or sexual harassment. Defendants contended that the Chief's actions regarding Owsley were legitimate, business decisions. Owsley admitted that she did not perceive anything sexual about the message she received from the Chief and that she never intended to report any "sexual harassment." Plaintiff's EEOC complaint was denied because she did not establish that she engaged in any protected activity. The City also contended that Owsley did not suffer any "adverse action" in that she admitted all of the following facts: her compensation was never reduced by the City, her evaluation ratings were never changed and that there were no changes in the terms of her employment by the Chief at any time.

Result

The parties agreed to settle the matter. Under the settlement agreement, Owsley was to receive compensation for the vacation and sick time she used while the case was pending, and an undisclosed cash amount.