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
First Amendment

Frankie Centner v. Dennis Stout, Clyde Boyd, Daniel Lough, Barry Bruins, Gene Williams, The County of San Bernardino, Office of the District Attorney of San Bernardino County

Published: Oct. 7, 2006 | Result Date: Apr. 11, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5:99-cv-00087-CJC-CT Verdict –  $3,424

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kirk D. Hanson
(Jackson Hanson LLP)


Defendant

Joseph Arias
(Arias & Lockwood)

Dennis E. Wagner
(Wagner Zemming Christensen LLP)


Facts

In 1995, Dennis Stout was elected as the new district attorney of San Bernardino County. Soon thereafter, Frankie Centner, a case worker for the district attorney's office, and other county employees, sent an anonymous letter to the County Board of Supervisors and the media. The letter charged Stout with acting unethically while sitting in his official position. An investigation led by Assistant District Attorney Daniel Lough ensued. Centner resigned in 1998. She filed a lawsuit against San Bernardino County, The San Bernardino District Attorney's Office, Barry Buins and Gene Williams (two D.A.'s office employees), Stout, and Clyde Boyd, her supervisor. Centner's lawsuit alleged retaliation for criticising the DA's office. Buins and Williams were later dismissed from the lawsuit.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff had a right to criticize the D.A.'s office pursuant to the 1st Amendment. The plaintiff claimed her supervisor, Boyd, retaliated against her by denying her a promotion after suspecting she was involved in disseminating the anonymous letter. The plaintiff also claimed that she witnessed Boyd having an affair with a coworker. As a result, she alleged sexual harassment and a hostile work environment against the county. Those claims were brought under the FEHA and the state whistleblower statutes. The FEHA claims were dismissed by the court under Rule 50(a).

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendants claimed that the allegations in the anonymous letter were false, so it was not protected speech. Further, the decisions to promote other more qualified employees instead of the plaintiff were made by county personnel officials, not the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff's retaliation allegation was unfounded. The defense challenged the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff by indicating that in bankruptcy documents, the plaintiff stated that the value of her lawsuit was $3,424.

Specials in Evidence

$660,000 reflecting what the plaintiff would have earned until retirement had she been promoted.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed emotional distress and requested $1,340,000.

Result

$3,424 awarded to the plaintiff on the First Amendment claim against defendant Boyd. The other defendants were cleared of liability on all claims.

Other Information

Plaintiff requested $690,000 in attorney's fees, but was only awarded $57,000. Plaintiff has appealed to the 9th Circuit following an order denying her a new trial. Boyd has cross-appealed from an order denying him qualified immunity and JNOV.

Deliberation

one day

Poll

9-0 (as to Stout), 9-0 (as to Lough), 9-0 (as to county), 9-0 (as to Boyd)

Length

two weeks


#99814

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

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