UPDATE II (25 June 2009):
Hot Carmel
Carmel HR Manager alleges harassment and discrimination.
June 25, 2009 12:00 AM
By Kera Abraham
UPDATE (23 June 2009):
Carmel city leader used sex for power, suit alleges
Employee sues ex-boss Rich Guillen for discrimination
By VIRGINIA HENNESSEY
Herald Salinas Bureau
Updated: 06/23/2009
NOTES:
San Francisco attorney Richard Bolano is representing the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, according to The Monterey County Herald article. Richard (Rick) Bolanos is the Managing Partner of the San Francisco office of the firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. Attorney Cynthia O’Neill, mentioned in the article as the City’s labor law attorney, is also with the firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.
The State Bar of California:
Richard Charles Bolanos - #111343
Cynthia J O'Neill - #132334
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Human Resources Manager Jane Miller filed a lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea alleging Sex-Based Discrimination in Employment, Age-Based Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment in Employment, Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment from Occurring, Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment Based on Age from Occurring and Retaliation in Violation of Law. The Plaintiff seeks damages for loss of wages, benefits, et cetera, relating to Plaintiff’s employment, emotional and physical injuries, et cetera, and attorney fees and litigation expenses, et cetera. Selected excerpts from ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION are presented and the FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH and SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION are reproduced in their entirety. NOTE: Female A is believed to be former Community Services Director Christie Miller; Female B is believed to be Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk. Attorney Michael W. Stamp represents Jane Miller. A Case Management Conference is scheduled for 17 December 2009 at 9:00 A.M. in Department 15, Judge Susan M. Dauphiné.
Highlights of Allegations, as follows:
The City delegated its personnel decisions to Guillen and unreasonably allowed him to engage in inappropriate and unethical employment-related actions that allowed for favoritism, created a hostile work environment and put Guillen outside the law. The Mayor and other top City officials set a tone that allowed, permitted, and effectively encouraged Guillen’s actions.
The City failed to reasonably prevent Guillen’s abuse of his power, failed to investigate and prevent Guillen’s continuing violation of Plaintiff and other employees’ rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of sex and gender, failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to Guillen’s actions, and endorsed, ratified, and sanctioned Guillen’s actions.
The City failed to reasonably prevent Guillen’s abuse of his power, failed to investigate and prevent Guillen’s continuing violation of Plaintiff and other employees’ rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of age, failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to Guillen’s actions, and endorsed, ratified, and sanctioned Guillen’s actions.
The City retaliated against Plaintiff for her protected expressions and activities. The retaliation included falsely blaming Plaintiff for Guillen’s actions in regard to the pay and benefits of Female A and Female B; stigmatizing and isolating Plaintiff in her professional duties and responsibilities; advising Plaintiff and others that her job had been terminated; proposing and approving the elimination of Plaintiff’s position; allowing and permitting Guillen to punish and threaten Plaintiff for reporting her claims and for speaking out taking the actions described above in forcing Plaintiff from her job and her profession; and denying Plaintiff any prompt or effective remedy after Plaintiff communicated her complaints to the City. Other employees, including Female A and Female B, who did not engage in the expression and activities of Plaintiff, did not suffer the same or similar retaliatory acts.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513)
COMPLAINT
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
“Plaintiff is an adult female employed by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. She is 62 years old. Since 1999, Plaintiff was employed by the city, first as the Personnel Specialist and, since August 2003, as the Human Resources Manager.”
“The Mayor and City Council, and their officers, agents, and attorneys had actual and/or constructive notice of the actions, omissions, and statements of Guillen, including a continuous course of conduct and continuing violations directed at Plaintiff by Guillen from 2004 to the present, and did not take reasonable, prudent, or effective steps to prevent the conduct of Guillen or to prevent injuries suffered by Plaintiff. The Mayor and City Council delegated to Guillen the power to make any and all personnel-related decisions, and did so without retaining reasonable oversight and review by the Mayor and City Council.”
“As Guillen continued his relationship with, and favoritism towards, Female A, he gradually and persistently, created a hostile work environment for other female employees, including Plaintiff. Guillen frequently demonstrated his absolute control of the workplace, and emphasized how he had been delegated by the Mayor to exercise the authority of the City, and was able to override standards applicable to other persons and to the procedures and policies in effect at the City. He demonstrated how he was able to dismiss and make derogatory remarks about others in the City, including elected officials, with impunity. He demonstrated how he was able to make decisions in the workplace that were not based upon legitimate work-related bases, but which were personal, unchecked and not challenged by others in City government, including the Mayor, City Council, and City Attorney.”
“By May 2007, the talk at City Hall increased about Guillen’s relationship with Female A and, recently, with another female employee, Female B. The talk was open and widespread and was known to city employees and others, including the Mayor and City Attorney. Guillen at that time knew that his comments were being made about him and Female A and Female B. Guillen know that the comments were adversely affecting the workplace, particularly in regard to women in the workplace, for whom the relationships with Female A and Female B were perceived as inappropriate, unprofessional and based on favoritism.”
“In November 2007, Plaintiff arranged an on-line sexual harassment training program for City supervisors. Of the thirty-six City employees enrolled in the program, only Guillen never completed the program. Guillen never even started it.”
“From January 2001 to 2003, Guillen forced out several long-time City directors and employees, including the Assistant City Administrator, Community & Cultural Director, Public Works Director and Financial Services Coordinator. Guillen negotiated with those employees, and combined the negotiations with threats to terminate certain of those employees, all of whom were significantly over the age of 40. Guillen made it clear to Plaintiff and to others that he was acting with the full support of the Mayor and City Council in his decisions to oust these older administrators, and that Guillen had the absolute power to unilaterally make and implement any personnel or other decisions he chose to make, including the decision to terminate any or all of the positions described above. “
“Also in late 2006, Guillen decided to force from employment a female career management employee over the age of 40 who had been employed for many years…Guillen told Plaintiff that Guillen personally did not like this employee, and that Guillen and the Mayor wanted the employee out of City service.”
“In January 2008, Guillen began to take steps to force out another long time female employee (over the age of 50) in City Hall. Guillen considered the employee to be too old and not loyal enough to Guillen.”
“On or about May 20, 2008, Plaintiff’s legal counsel wrote to the Mayor and City Council of the City, formerly advising them of Guillen’s sex-based discrimination and harassment and Guillen’s age-based discrimination in forcing Plaintiff from her position. Plaintiff asked that the City Council take prompt and effective action to reduce the injury to Plaintiff, to prevent Guillen from taking action in regard to her Complaint, to preserve documentary evidence, including Guillen’s emails and phone records, some of which Guillen kept at home even though they were official City records.”
“The Mayor, City Council and City Attorney did not respond further, and took no prompt or effective action in reaction to Plaintiff’s May 20, 2008 letter. Instead, they referred Plaintiff’s letter to Guillen for him to handle, without any investigation or evaluation of the conduct of Guillen or the assertions of Plaintiff, all in violation of state law and other policies and procedures designed to prevent retaliation and injury to workers who complain of inappropriate sex and age-based violations.”
“The acts and omissions of Guillen and the City constitute a continuing violation of the law against Plaintiff as part of discrimination, harassment, and efforts by Guillen ultimately to force Plaintiff from her employment and career. The City engaged in successive acts of harassment over the course of years of Plaintiff’s employment that constituted an actionable continuing violations and course of conduct under law.”
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sex-Based Discrimination in Employment)
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
The City had a duty not to discriminate against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her gender and had a duty to prevent such discrimination from occurring.
The City subjected Plaintiff to discrimination based on Plaintiff’s gender. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions including but not limited to a hostile work environment created by discrimination based on gender and the loss of Plaintiff’s employment and career.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.
Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Age-Based Discrimination in Employment)
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
The City had a duty not to discriminate against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her age and to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.
Plaintiff was subjected to a continuing discrimination by the City based on her age that is in violation of the law.
Plaintiff was discriminated against with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.
Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Harassment in Employment)
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
The City had a duty to not harass Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her gender. The city had a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring.
The City subjected Plaintiff to unwelcome, degrading and harassing comments, as described above on Plaintiff’s gender.
The City’s harassing comments were so severe and pervasive that they created a hostile work environment and adversely affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.
The City’s harassment of Plaintiff based on her gender, and failure to prevent the harassment are in violation of the law.
The City’s comments and acts of harassment were willful and intentional with disregard for the rights and reasonable sensibilities of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual pressure and verbal conduct of a sex-based nature. Guillen’s behavior with favored female employees conveyed a demeaning message to Plaintiff and other female employees that personal favors would be rewarded with higher pay, bonuses and other job benefits. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances by Guillen, whose conduct towards Plaintiff and other females was sufficiently pervasive and offensive so as to also alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive, intimating and hostile work environment.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.
Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment from Occurring)
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
The City had a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring.
The City and its agents, officers, officials and/or employees, failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment in employment from occurring, and to act promptly and effectively to prevent and remedy the harassment.
The City had a duty to provide City employees with a confidential, secure and effective way to voice and resolve their complaints. The City provided no such system.
The City delegated its personnel decisions to Guillen and unreasonably allowed him to engage in inappropriate and unethical employment-related actions that allowed for favoritism, created a hostile work environment and put Guillen outside the law. The Mayor and other top City officials set a tone that allowed, permitted, and effectively encouraged Guillen’s actions.
The City failed to reasonably prevent Guillen’s abuse of his power, failed to investigate and prevent Guillen’s continuing violation of Plaintiff and other employees’ rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of sex and gender, failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to Guillen’s actions, and endorsed, ratified, and sanctioned Guillen’s actions.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.
Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and harassment Based on Age from Occurring)
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
The City had a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment based on age from occurring.
The City and its agents, officers, officials and/or employees, failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment in employment based on age from occurring, and to act promptly and effectively to prevent and remedy harassment.
The City failed to reasonably prevent Guillen’s abuse of his power, failed to investigate and prevent Guillen’s continuing violation of Plaintiff and other employees’ rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of age, failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to Guillen’s actions, and endorsed, ratified, and sanctioned Guillen’s actions.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.
Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in Violation of Law)
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
Plaintiff’s expression and activities in questioning Guillen and opposing the unwarranted and extraordinary pay, working conditions, and benefits for Female A and Female B, in rejecting Guillen’s inappropriate advances, in refusing to engage in inappropriate conduct with Guillen, in complaining to the City about Guillen, and in other respects relating to Plaintiff’s performance of her duties were expressions and activities protected by law.
The City retaliated against Plaintiff for her protected expressions and activities. The retaliation included falsely blaming Plaintiff for Guillen’s actions in regard to the pay and benefits of Female A and Female B; stigmatizing and isolating Plaintiff in her professional duties and responsibilities; advising Plaintiff and others that her job had been terminated; proposing and approving the elimination of Plaintiff’s position; allowing and permitting Guillen to punish and threaten Plaintiff for reporting her claims and for speaking out taking the actions described above in forcing Plaintiff from her job and her profession; and denying Plaintiff any prompt or effective remedy after Plaintiff communicated her complaints to the City. Other employees, including Female A and Female B, who did not engage in the expression and activities of Plaintiff, did not suffer the same or similar retaliatory acts.
As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.
Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.
PRAYER FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
1. For damages for loss of wages, benefits, and other compensation or compensatory damages, interest on lost wages, benefits and compensation, and back pay and front pay relating to Plaintiff’s employment, along with all amounts necessary to make Plaintiff whole.
2. For damages for emotional and physical injuries proximately caused by Defendant’s conduct, acts and omissions, including medical expenses and other special damages.
3. For attorney fees and litigation expenses, as permitted by law; and
4. For prejudgment interest and other interest as provided by law.
5. For such, other relief as is necessary and just, and as the Court may direct.
Dated: June 17, 2009
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP
Michael W. Stamp
Molly E. Erickson
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ADDENDUM:
Worker alleges favoritism, sexual harrassment at city hall, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, June 19, 2009
9 comments:
It was only a matter of time until this made it into the light. It has been going on for years. Lots of people knew about this and no one did anything to put a stop to it or take it seriously. A number of city employees (past and present) have first-hand knowledge of Rich's activities.
The mayor and council (probably under legal advice) are going to take a defensive stance at this point that the charges are "unsubstantiated". Wait until Michael Stamp starts taking depositions and people start talking. Carmel will likely have to come up with a BIG settlement in this case. We're all screwed.
Rich should be put on administrative leave immediately so this matter can be properly investigated, something that can't be done when he is still present at city hall.
Let's hope he finally loses his job over this one. We would all be the better for his departure.
The people in desperate need of sexual harassment training are the council. These dinosaurs probably think they can get away with ignoring city hall workplace discrimination. I hope they are wrong. I was wondering why Karen Sharp was trying so hard to seem hip and in touch with 30 and 40 year olds, but what if Jane Miller had been her daughter? I shudder to think what kind of example she thinks she has set with her going along to get along and hope nothing ever comes out attitude.
I for one had no idea the extent of the tolerated harassment in City Hall. Now that I know I am ashamed of all the people who knew and kept silent, especially former city employees who knew and did nothing to expose Rich publicly. It is the old story who is worst the perpetrator or the people who knew and did nothing to tell the public or stop it from happening themselves?
People forget a city is only as good as the character of the people who live in it. I say the people involved here put themselves above a coworker and ended up aiding and abetting Rich. I am thoroughly disgusted.
The Pine Cone prides itself on printing all the news of Carmel, but the Pine Cone did not report when lawyer Michael Stamp wrote the letter enumerating Jane Miller's complaints in May 2008. Where was all the reporting before that on female A & female B, were reporters at the Pine Cone unaware or in denial or in advocacy mode, cover-up mode for Sue’s administration? The fact is the Pine Cone only published this story in June 2009 because it couldn't ignore it any longer.
Paul Miller relishes attacking people in his editorials he doesn’t like or those at odds with Sue, but he never seems to write about Sue and her administration’s abuses. News wise and editorial wise more propaganda than news.
And Mayor Sue McCloud was named 2009 Public Official of the Year by Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce a few months ago. Shame of MPCC and shame on the people who knew and saw no evil, heard no evil, spoke no evil, especially the local media who collectively have been in Sue McCloud’s propaganda pocket for years.
At least three ways the Carmel taxpayers are going to be hammered.
1. An historic settlement to Jane Miller for her to go away.
2. A fat severance package to Rich Guillen to not implicate Sue McCloud as the originator of the discrimination policy of firing employees over the age of 40.
3. Legal fees to attorney Rick Bolanos to defend the indefensible, the actions of everyone at city hall.
Can you hear the giant sucking sound coming from the $10 million reserve accounts? I can!
Dear Jane Miller:
I do not know you, I have not met you, but I have read of your plight on the web. Take strength in the realization you exposed Carmel's myth of being a model of good government. You exposed Rich Guillen for the abuser he is and the mayor and council as being complicit in the abuses and illegal acts. Female A and Female B make all women look bad.
Know you informed people who did not know and we support you.
Very truly yours,
Carmelite Who Now Knows
P.S. You also exposed the media myth of the media providing news you can count on. You forced the Carmel Pine Cone and the Herald to publish a story they would have preferred to bury.
CIA Sue is really the perpetrator behind the scene and should be held accountable for the implementation of city policies, i.e., forcing into early retirement employees over the age of 40, and fostering a climate where harassment is the norm. She is the problem and not the victim, although she may use that as a defense.
Trout, you are so right!
After all the monies spent on marketing and tourist promotion, the reputation of our city has been sullied by the actions, inactions and cover up of the mayor, council and administrator. Now with instant communications, every potential market will know of Carmel's sleazy government which will cancel out the attractive marketing slogans of Burghart-Dore.
Post a Comment