ABSTRACT: Minutes (December 18, 2009) on the City’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Jane Kingsley Miller’s Counsel Michael Stamp from representing her in Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent (M99513), Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, are reproduced. Judge Larry E. Hayes denied the City’s motion and continued April 2, 2010 at 8:45 a.m. in Salinas, courtroom 4, for Case Management Conference and Discovery.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent
Judge: Larry E. Hayes
Clerk: Lisa Cortez
CSR: Jeannette Jessup-Hiura – CSR#8573
Minutes: Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel
Date: December 18, 2009
Case No. M99513
Courtroom 4
Appearances:
Michael Stamp, Attorney for Plaintiff, Jane Kingsley Miller
Suzanne Solomon, Attorney for Defendant, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Case regularly called for Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.
Court has reviewed all documents submitted by respective counsel.
Arguments are made by respective counsel.
Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel is denied. Reasons stated for the record.
Case continued April 2, 2010 at 8:45 a.m. in Salinas, courtroom 4 for Case Management Conference and Discovery.
Showing posts with label Employment Discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Employment Discrimination. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
ATTORNEY MICHAEL W. STAMP: Letter to the Mayor & City Council Regarding Confidential Personnel Matter – Jane Miller
ABSTRACT: On May 20, 2008, attorney Michael W. Stamp wrote a letter to the Mayor and City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea regarding “Confidential Personnel Matter – Jane Miller.” The letter is reproduced in its entirety, a total of 3 typed pages. In response to Michael Stamp’s letter of May 20, 2008, Leanne Graham, Assistant to City Attorney Donald G. Freeman, wrote in a May 22, 2008 letter that Donald Freeman “will prepare a response to your May 20, 2008 letter.” Attorney Michael Stamp never received a response from City Attorney Don Freeman.
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL W. STAMP
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1
Monterey, California 93940
Facsimile (8310 373-0242
Telephone (831) 373-1214
May 20, 2008
Confidential
Mayor and City Council
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Hall
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
RE: Confidential Personnel Matter – Jane Miller
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I represent Jane Miller in regard to her employment with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Ms. Miller is the City’s Human Resources Manager. She has nearly 24 years of service to the public. She has worked for the City since 1999, when she was appointed by City Administrator Jere Kersnar as the City’s Personnel Specialist. Her performance evaluations have been extremely positive over the years, and her devotion to public service has been exemplary. There can be no doubt about Ms. Miller’s qualifications, skill, and expertise.
After years of compliments and praise, City Administrator Richard Guillen has turned on Ms. Miller, and seeks to drive her from her career. Mr. Guillen’s behavior and comments towards Ms. Miller have isolated, embarrassed, and stigmatized Ms. Miller in the workplace. After a sustained period of increasingly offensive conduct and statements, Mr. Guillen now proposes to eliminate Ms. Miller’s position with the City.
The actions by Mr. Guillen constitute retaliation, gender-based discrimination and harassment, as well as age-based discrimination. In light of Mr. Guillen’s history with other employees and with Ms. Miller, along with his willingness to go outside the law and City policies to get what he wants, Ms. Miller has no option except to advise you directly of the illegal nature of this action and to institute enforcement procedures with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Although Ms. Miller and other employees have been directed by Mr. Guillen that employees are not allowed to contact the Mayor and City Council about City business, we are disregarding that instruction as an illegal employment practice.
For the past several years, the Mayor and City Council have supported Mr. Guillen without meaningful inquiry into his practices and without effective oversight. His inappropriate relationships with female subordinates, his actions in classifying and regarding favored employees, his extravagance with public funds, his favoritism within the work place, his inappropriate actions and statements, and his unchecked power over the lives, salaries, and personal lives of City employees have been overlooked or unexamined by the Mayor and Council. Those actions have resulted in a hostile work place and adverse and illegal employment actions that have directly and permanently injured Ms. Miller.
We ask that the City take the following steps. First, Ms. Miller immediately should be placed on non-disciplinary, paid administrative leave with full benefits. Second, Mr. Guillen immediately should be removed from his role as supervisor of City employees. Third, the city immediately should take action to preserve any emails and instant messenger records of Mr. Guillen for the period since January 1, 2004 to the present, including his emails to, from or about Ms. Miller and the other women under his supervision or control during that time period, including those who have left City service and those who are planning on leaving City service. He should be directed to preserve emails from his personal accounts as well, including those relating to Ms. Miller. Fourth, the Mayor and City Council immediately should unequivocally reject the proposed elimination of the Human Resources Manager position.
In addition, the City should take immediate steps to preserve all records, electronic and paper, regarding salary increases, salary adjustments, retroactive salary adjustments, qualifications of employees (including Directors), hiring, classifications, and other personnel actions relating to favorable treatment for any employees. This includes the job descriptions, salary calculations, and retroactive pay authorized by the City Administrator, and the documents relating to the employees who have left City service over the past few years.
In addition, we ask that the City take immediate steps to preserve the calendars and appointment records for Mr. Guillen, and for all female employees supervised by Mr. Guillen at any time. We also ask that the City retrieve from Mr. Guillen all phone records for his City-paid cellular phone, including the records that he arranged to have sent directly to his home instead of to the City. If Mr. Guillen has destroyed those records, (which are public records), the City should immediately retrieve them from Nextel, Verizon, or any other telephone carrier that holds records showing those expenditures and calls. Separately, the hard drive for any computer used by Mr. Guillen for City business should be secured by the City.
We also ask that the Mayor and City Council carefully and critically analyze the financial impact to the City of eliminating the Human Resources Manager position held by Ms. Miller. This includes collecting and assessing specific bake-up details about the costs, the exact specification of all assumptions about how the vital human resources and risk management services would be provided, and the analysis by the City Attorney and/or by the City’s outside personnel attorneys about the wisdom and feasibility of eliminating this vital position, particularly in light of the actual circumstances with the City’s personnel actions. Other remedial steps will be necessary; the list of actions described in this letter is only a partial list of the actions which need to be taken.
If you have any questions about this letter or about this matter, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Michael W. Stamp
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL W. STAMP
479 Pacific Street, Suite 1
Monterey, California 93940
Facsimile (8310 373-0242
Telephone (831) 373-1214
May 20, 2008
Confidential
Mayor and City Council
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Hall
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
RE: Confidential Personnel Matter – Jane Miller
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I represent Jane Miller in regard to her employment with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Ms. Miller is the City’s Human Resources Manager. She has nearly 24 years of service to the public. She has worked for the City since 1999, when she was appointed by City Administrator Jere Kersnar as the City’s Personnel Specialist. Her performance evaluations have been extremely positive over the years, and her devotion to public service has been exemplary. There can be no doubt about Ms. Miller’s qualifications, skill, and expertise.
After years of compliments and praise, City Administrator Richard Guillen has turned on Ms. Miller, and seeks to drive her from her career. Mr. Guillen’s behavior and comments towards Ms. Miller have isolated, embarrassed, and stigmatized Ms. Miller in the workplace. After a sustained period of increasingly offensive conduct and statements, Mr. Guillen now proposes to eliminate Ms. Miller’s position with the City.
The actions by Mr. Guillen constitute retaliation, gender-based discrimination and harassment, as well as age-based discrimination. In light of Mr. Guillen’s history with other employees and with Ms. Miller, along with his willingness to go outside the law and City policies to get what he wants, Ms. Miller has no option except to advise you directly of the illegal nature of this action and to institute enforcement procedures with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Although Ms. Miller and other employees have been directed by Mr. Guillen that employees are not allowed to contact the Mayor and City Council about City business, we are disregarding that instruction as an illegal employment practice.
For the past several years, the Mayor and City Council have supported Mr. Guillen without meaningful inquiry into his practices and without effective oversight. His inappropriate relationships with female subordinates, his actions in classifying and regarding favored employees, his extravagance with public funds, his favoritism within the work place, his inappropriate actions and statements, and his unchecked power over the lives, salaries, and personal lives of City employees have been overlooked or unexamined by the Mayor and Council. Those actions have resulted in a hostile work place and adverse and illegal employment actions that have directly and permanently injured Ms. Miller.
We ask that the City take the following steps. First, Ms. Miller immediately should be placed on non-disciplinary, paid administrative leave with full benefits. Second, Mr. Guillen immediately should be removed from his role as supervisor of City employees. Third, the city immediately should take action to preserve any emails and instant messenger records of Mr. Guillen for the period since January 1, 2004 to the present, including his emails to, from or about Ms. Miller and the other women under his supervision or control during that time period, including those who have left City service and those who are planning on leaving City service. He should be directed to preserve emails from his personal accounts as well, including those relating to Ms. Miller. Fourth, the Mayor and City Council immediately should unequivocally reject the proposed elimination of the Human Resources Manager position.
In addition, the City should take immediate steps to preserve all records, electronic and paper, regarding salary increases, salary adjustments, retroactive salary adjustments, qualifications of employees (including Directors), hiring, classifications, and other personnel actions relating to favorable treatment for any employees. This includes the job descriptions, salary calculations, and retroactive pay authorized by the City Administrator, and the documents relating to the employees who have left City service over the past few years.
In addition, we ask that the City take immediate steps to preserve the calendars and appointment records for Mr. Guillen, and for all female employees supervised by Mr. Guillen at any time. We also ask that the City retrieve from Mr. Guillen all phone records for his City-paid cellular phone, including the records that he arranged to have sent directly to his home instead of to the City. If Mr. Guillen has destroyed those records, (which are public records), the City should immediately retrieve them from Nextel, Verizon, or any other telephone carrier that holds records showing those expenditures and calls. Separately, the hard drive for any computer used by Mr. Guillen for City business should be secured by the City.
We also ask that the Mayor and City Council carefully and critically analyze the financial impact to the City of eliminating the Human Resources Manager position held by Ms. Miller. This includes collecting and assessing specific bake-up details about the costs, the exact specification of all assumptions about how the vital human resources and risk management services would be provided, and the analysis by the City Attorney and/or by the City’s outside personnel attorneys about the wisdom and feasibility of eliminating this vital position, particularly in light of the actual circumstances with the City’s personnel actions. Other remedial steps will be necessary; the list of actions described in this letter is only a partial list of the actions which need to be taken.
If you have any questions about this letter or about this matter, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Michael W. Stamp
City’s ‘Investigation’ into On-Leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s Complaint
ABSTRACT: Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) attorney Richard Bolanos, the City's attorney, notified attorney Michael Stamp that LCW had contracted with private investigator/attorney Karen Kramer to investigate Jane Miller’s complaint. The investigation occurred between August 2008, three months after attorney Michael Stamp’s letter to the Mayor and City Council, and January 2009. Selected paraphrased excerpts from a letter written by Liebert Cassidy Whitmore attorney Richard Bolanos to attorney Michael Stamp notifying him of the completion of the investigation are presented. A NOTE of clarification is presented.
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL DOCUMENT
Dated February 9, 209
From Attorney Richard Bolanos
Re: Notice of Completion of Investigation – Jane Miller’s Workplace Complaints
On or about August 7, 2008, the City contacted with private investigator Karen Kramer to investigate Jane Miller’s allegations. Private investigator/attorney Karen Kramer interviewed 12 witnesses and concluded Jane Miller’s allegations were “not substantiated.” The investigation was deemed closed and complete.
NOTE: Attorney Michael Stamp declared that Karen Kramer did not interview “Employee Number 1” (former Assistant City Administrator Greg D'Ambrosio), “Employee Number 2” (former Sunset Center Director Brian Donoghue), "Employee Number 3” (former Library Director Margaret Pelikan) or "Employee Number 4” (former Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell) during the course of the investigation between August 2008 and January 2009.
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL DOCUMENT
Dated February 9, 209
From Attorney Richard Bolanos
Re: Notice of Completion of Investigation – Jane Miller’s Workplace Complaints
On or about August 7, 2008, the City contacted with private investigator Karen Kramer to investigate Jane Miller’s allegations. Private investigator/attorney Karen Kramer interviewed 12 witnesses and concluded Jane Miller’s allegations were “not substantiated.” The investigation was deemed closed and complete.
NOTE: Attorney Michael Stamp declared that Karen Kramer did not interview “Employee Number 1” (former Assistant City Administrator Greg D'Ambrosio), “Employee Number 2” (former Sunset Center Director Brian Donoghue), "Employee Number 3” (former Library Director Margaret Pelikan) or "Employee Number 4” (former Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell) during the course of the investigation between August 2008 and January 2009.
Highlights of DECLARATIONS of City Administrator Richard Guillen versus Attorney Michael Stamp, Miller, Jane Kingsley v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513)
ABSTRACT: Selected excerpts and selected paraphrased excerpts from DECLARATIONS, under penalty of perjury, of City Administrator Richard Guillen and Attorney Michael Stamp, in the Miller, Jane Kingsley v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99523), are presented. Components of a Representative Agreement (Settlement) for Four Senior City Employees representing over $500,000 are presented.
Highlights of DECLARATION OF RICHARD GUILLEN:
• In 2003, the City decided to implement the golden handshake. Under PERS golden handshake, employee received two years’ service credit in return for retiring at a time determined by the City.
• Declared that Greg D’Ambrosio (“Employee Number 1”) “wanted to retire and receive the golden handshake.” (2003)
• Declared that Brian Donoghue (“Employee Number 2”) wanted to retire and receive the golden handshake. (2003)
• Declared that Margaret Pelikan (“Employee Number 3”) wanted to “retire with the golden handshake.” (2006)
• Declared that Sandy Farrell (“Employee Number 4”) “wanted to retire and wanted the golden handshake.” (2008)
• Declared, under penalty of perjury. that Greg D’Ambrosio, Brian Donoghue, Margaret Pelikan and Sandy Farrell never made any allegations of harassment or discrimination.
• Declared, under penalty of perjury, that he had not had any legal training. (Yet he completed two years of law school.)
NOTE: Former Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio was a City employee for 32 years, former Director of Sunset Center Brian Donoghue was a City employee for 13 years, former Library Director Margaret Pelikan was a City employee for 29 years and former Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell was a City employee for 25 years. And all were of approximately the same age and all were in the protected class for age discrimination under State and Federal law.
Highlights of DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. STAMP:
• Declared that he, Michael Stamp, never communicated to Mr. Guillen or anyone that his clients wanted “Golden Handshakes” or that he was retained as a PERS expert.
• Declared that all four Carmel-by-the-Sea employees raised significant claims that went beyond what the City has offered them, and that “Mr. Guillen was fully aware of those claims and issues. The claims included hostile work environment, Mr. Guillen’s favoritism toward select females, and age and gender discrimination.”
• Declared that he, Michael Stamp, was willing to litigate claims against the City if the City did not settle.
• Declared that he represented four senior City employees in 2003, 2006 and 2008. And all four senior City employees had claims similar to Jane Miller’s claims, namely issues of “early retirement” efforts by the City and discrimination. Agreements were approved by the City Attorney, Mayor and City Council. The City agreed to pay more than $500,000 in negotiated “early retirement” compensation.
• Declared that Mr. Guillen repeated assured him that the Mayor and City Council considered the matters to be “significant,” both “financially and organizationally.” And the claims were higher than Mr. Guillen wanted to pay, but were regarded necessary under the circumstances.
Representative Agreement (Settlement) for Four Senior City Employees Representing a Total in Excess of $500,000:
1. Two (2) years additional service credit to PERS (ORD 2003-7)
2. Six (6) months severance pay
3. All accrued sick leave as applied as an extension of PERS service credit.
4. Buy-out of fifty percent (50%) of accrued sick leave at current hourly rate.
5. One hundred percent (100%) Pay for Performance Measure Bonus for year.
6. Buy-Out of any remaining vacation.
Highlights of DECLARATION OF RICHARD GUILLEN:
• In 2003, the City decided to implement the golden handshake. Under PERS golden handshake, employee received two years’ service credit in return for retiring at a time determined by the City.
• Declared that Greg D’Ambrosio (“Employee Number 1”) “wanted to retire and receive the golden handshake.” (2003)
• Declared that Brian Donoghue (“Employee Number 2”) wanted to retire and receive the golden handshake. (2003)
• Declared that Margaret Pelikan (“Employee Number 3”) wanted to “retire with the golden handshake.” (2006)
• Declared that Sandy Farrell (“Employee Number 4”) “wanted to retire and wanted the golden handshake.” (2008)
• Declared, under penalty of perjury. that Greg D’Ambrosio, Brian Donoghue, Margaret Pelikan and Sandy Farrell never made any allegations of harassment or discrimination.
• Declared, under penalty of perjury, that he had not had any legal training. (Yet he completed two years of law school.)
NOTE: Former Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio was a City employee for 32 years, former Director of Sunset Center Brian Donoghue was a City employee for 13 years, former Library Director Margaret Pelikan was a City employee for 29 years and former Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell was a City employee for 25 years. And all were of approximately the same age and all were in the protected class for age discrimination under State and Federal law.
Highlights of DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. STAMP:
• Declared that he, Michael Stamp, never communicated to Mr. Guillen or anyone that his clients wanted “Golden Handshakes” or that he was retained as a PERS expert.
• Declared that all four Carmel-by-the-Sea employees raised significant claims that went beyond what the City has offered them, and that “Mr. Guillen was fully aware of those claims and issues. The claims included hostile work environment, Mr. Guillen’s favoritism toward select females, and age and gender discrimination.”
• Declared that he, Michael Stamp, was willing to litigate claims against the City if the City did not settle.
• Declared that he represented four senior City employees in 2003, 2006 and 2008. And all four senior City employees had claims similar to Jane Miller’s claims, namely issues of “early retirement” efforts by the City and discrimination. Agreements were approved by the City Attorney, Mayor and City Council. The City agreed to pay more than $500,000 in negotiated “early retirement” compensation.
• Declared that Mr. Guillen repeated assured him that the Mayor and City Council considered the matters to be “significant,” both “financially and organizationally.” And the claims were higher than Mr. Guillen wanted to pay, but were regarded necessary under the circumstances.
Representative Agreement (Settlement) for Four Senior City Employees Representing a Total in Excess of $500,000:
1. Two (2) years additional service credit to PERS (ORD 2003-7)
2. Six (6) months severance pay
3. All accrued sick leave as applied as an extension of PERS service credit.
4. Buy-out of fifty percent (50%) of accrued sick leave at current hourly rate.
5. One hundred percent (100%) Pay for Performance Measure Bonus for year.
6. Buy-Out of any remaining vacation.
Friday, December 18, 2009
DENIED: City’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney Michael Stamp from Representing On-Leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller
Today, after hearing oral arguments from Suzanne Solomon, attorney for Defendant/Respondent City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Michael Stamp, attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, Judge Larry E. Hayes denied the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the city alleging age-based and sex-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. Highlights include, as follows:
• Judge Larry Hayes found “extreme delay causing extreme prejudice.”
• Judge Larry Hayes characterized the claims of City Administrator Rich Guillen, and especially the claims of City Attorney Don Freeman, regarding attorney Michael Stamp's representation of city employees, “disingenuous.”
• Between 2003 and 2008, when attorney Michael Stamp represented four senior management employees, the City never even suggested to him a “conflict.”
• Attorney Michael Stamp’s legal advice to the City regarding the City’s sexual harassment policy was limited to making comments on the policy about 15 years ago. Moreover, that sexual harassment policy has since been superseded by another sexual harassment policy written by another attorney.
• The destruction of certain records by the City was with the knowledge and approval of City Attorney Don Freeman.
• Judge Larry Hayes underscored the disparate financial resources of the City compared to one, lone petitioner.
Lastly, Judge Larry Hayes scheduled the Case Management Conference for April 2, 2010 @ 8:45 A.M., Department 4.
NOTE: Official Court Minutes as soon as available.
COMMENT:
• In filing its motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller, the City succeeded in delaying the legal process by three months thereby ensuring a hearing date post-Municipal Election 2010.
ADDENDUM:
Judge rejects Carmel's motion to disqualify attorney in Jane Miller case. Dec. 18, 2009 / Kera Abraham
Judge rejects Carmel's motion to disqualify attorney
Calls effort an attempt to derail harassment suit
VIRGINIA HENNESSEY, Herald Salinas Bureau, 12/19/2009
• Judge Larry Hayes found “extreme delay causing extreme prejudice.”
• Judge Larry Hayes characterized the claims of City Administrator Rich Guillen, and especially the claims of City Attorney Don Freeman, regarding attorney Michael Stamp's representation of city employees, “disingenuous.”
• Between 2003 and 2008, when attorney Michael Stamp represented four senior management employees, the City never even suggested to him a “conflict.”
• Attorney Michael Stamp’s legal advice to the City regarding the City’s sexual harassment policy was limited to making comments on the policy about 15 years ago. Moreover, that sexual harassment policy has since been superseded by another sexual harassment policy written by another attorney.
• The destruction of certain records by the City was with the knowledge and approval of City Attorney Don Freeman.
• Judge Larry Hayes underscored the disparate financial resources of the City compared to one, lone petitioner.
Lastly, Judge Larry Hayes scheduled the Case Management Conference for April 2, 2010 @ 8:45 A.M., Department 4.
NOTE: Official Court Minutes as soon as available.
COMMENT:
• In filing its motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller, the City succeeded in delaying the legal process by three months thereby ensuring a hearing date post-Municipal Election 2010.
ADDENDUM:
Judge rejects Carmel's motion to disqualify attorney in Jane Miller case. Dec. 18, 2009 / Kera Abraham
Judge rejects Carmel's motion to disqualify attorney
Calls effort an attempt to derail harassment suit
VIRGINIA HENNESSEY, Herald Salinas Bureau, 12/19/2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
‘Further Proceeding’ Minutes: Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent
ABSTRACT: ‘Further Proceeding’ Minutes (October 30, 2009) on the City’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff Jane Kingsley Miller’s Counsel Michael Stamp from representing her in Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent (M99513), Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, are reproduced. Judge Larry E. Hayes continued to December 18, 2009 at 8:45 a.m., Courtroom 4, Salinas, for Further Argument on Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent
Judge: Larry E. Hayes
Clerk: Lisa Cortez
CSR: Jeannette Jessup-Hiura – CSR#8573
Minutes: Further Proceedings
Date: October 30, 2009
Case No. M99513
Courtroom 4
Appearances:
Michael Stamp, Attorney for Plaintiff, Jane Kingsley Miller
Suzanne Solomon, Attorney for Defendant, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Case called for Further Arguments on Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.
It is ordered documents referenced to in Camera on October 28, 2009 shall be made available for review by Michael Stamp and his legal team.
Any further response by Michael Stamp to be filed by November 9, 2009.
Court finds significant delay by the City of Carmel raising Prima Facia showing prejudice.
The City of Carmel to file any further declarations or Points and Authorities by November 17, 2009.
Points and Authorities on Standards of Prejudice to be filed by December 14, 2009.
Continued to December 18, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. in Salinas in Courtroom 4 for Further Argument on Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.//
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Miller, Jane Kingsley, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Defendant/Respondent
Judge: Larry E. Hayes
Clerk: Lisa Cortez
CSR: Jeannette Jessup-Hiura – CSR#8573
Minutes: Further Proceedings
Date: October 30, 2009
Case No. M99513
Courtroom 4
Appearances:
Michael Stamp, Attorney for Plaintiff, Jane Kingsley Miller
Suzanne Solomon, Attorney for Defendant, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Case called for Further Arguments on Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.
It is ordered documents referenced to in Camera on October 28, 2009 shall be made available for review by Michael Stamp and his legal team.
Any further response by Michael Stamp to be filed by November 9, 2009.
Court finds significant delay by the City of Carmel raising Prima Facia showing prejudice.
The City of Carmel to file any further declarations or Points and Authorities by November 17, 2009.
Points and Authorities on Standards of Prejudice to be filed by December 14, 2009.
Continued to December 18, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. in Salinas in Courtroom 4 for Further Argument on Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel.//
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Michael LePage: “you, Mayor McCloud and the City Council, should immediately put Mr. Guillen on administrative leave.”
ABSTRACT: At the 3 November 2009 City Council Meeting, during Appearances, Carmel-by-the-Sea resident Michael LePage addressed the public and council members; he called for Mayor McCloud and the City Council to “immediately put Mr. Guillen on administrative leave,” pending the resolution of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s lawsuit against the City alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council Agenda -- AMENDED
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the City Clerk. If you need assistance, please advise Heidi Burch as to which item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Resident Michael LePage:
"Mayor McCloud and City Council Members, I am very concerned about the message that the City of Carmel is sending out regarding the sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed against the alleged actions of Rich Guillen, our city administrator."
"You, Mayor McCloud and City Council, need to send a strong message to Carmel’s employees and its residents that there will be zero tolerance for this kind of behavior in the workplace."
"The fact that two previous employees have received settlements for alleged claims of favoritism and sexual discrimination during Mr. Guillen’s tenure, along with the recent accusations of possible acts of retaliation for deposition testimony only underscores the seriousness of this situation. Because of this, the ability of Mr. Guillen has been effectively limited and compromised, along with the City’s reputation. Until this matter is fully explored in the courts, you, Mayor McCloud and the City Council, should immediately put Mr. Guillen on administrative leave."
(Source: Archived Videos, City Council November 05, 2009, 54: 35 - 55:35)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council Agenda -- AMENDED
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the City Clerk. If you need assistance, please advise Heidi Burch as to which item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Resident Michael LePage:
"Mayor McCloud and City Council Members, I am very concerned about the message that the City of Carmel is sending out regarding the sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed against the alleged actions of Rich Guillen, our city administrator."
"You, Mayor McCloud and City Council, need to send a strong message to Carmel’s employees and its residents that there will be zero tolerance for this kind of behavior in the workplace."
"The fact that two previous employees have received settlements for alleged claims of favoritism and sexual discrimination during Mr. Guillen’s tenure, along with the recent accusations of possible acts of retaliation for deposition testimony only underscores the seriousness of this situation. Because of this, the ability of Mr. Guillen has been effectively limited and compromised, along with the City’s reputation. Until this matter is fully explored in the courts, you, Mayor McCloud and the City Council, should immediately put Mr. Guillen on administrative leave."
(Source: Archived Videos, City Council November 05, 2009, 54: 35 - 55:35)
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
UPDATE: City's Motion to Disqualify Attorney Michael Stamp from Representing On-Leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller
ABSTRACT: A synopsis of the events which occurred at the Motion Hearing on Friday, 23 October 2009, Courtroom 4, Salinas Courthouse, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Larry Hayes presiding is presented. Judge Hayes scheduled a date for another Hearing on the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing his client on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit (M99513) for Friday, 18 December 2009 at 8:45 A.M in Courtroom 4, Salinas Courthouse.
On the morning of Friday, 23 October 2009, the Motion Hearing involving the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation was conducted in Courtroom 4, Judge Larry Hayes presiding.
After a pre-motion conference with attorneys Suzanne Solomon representing the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Michael Stamp representing his client Jane Miller, Judge Larry Hayes made several decisions, including, as follows:
• Judge Larry Hayes stated that an attorney having a “substantial relationship” with the City for ten years does not necessarily merit disqualification from the case.
• Judge Hayes ordered the City to make the 106 pages of documentation which allegedly supports the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller available to attorney Michael Stamp; the City had previously withheld the documentation from attorney Michael Stamp.
• Judge Hayes scheduled deadline dates in November and December for briefs involving justification by the City as to why it delayed the request for the disqualification of attorney Michael Stamp when attorney Michael Stamp had advised the city of his representation as early as May 2008 and briefs on the concepts of “prejudice” and “extreme prejudice” with respect to disqualification.
• Judge Hayes vacated the date for the Case Management Conference and scheduled a date for another Hearing on the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing his client Jane Miller in her lawsuit (M99513) for Friday, 18 December 2009 at 8:45 A.M in Courtroom 4, Salinas Courthouse.
On the morning of Friday, 23 October 2009, the Motion Hearing involving the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation was conducted in Courtroom 4, Judge Larry Hayes presiding.
After a pre-motion conference with attorneys Suzanne Solomon representing the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Michael Stamp representing his client Jane Miller, Judge Larry Hayes made several decisions, including, as follows:
• Judge Larry Hayes stated that an attorney having a “substantial relationship” with the City for ten years does not necessarily merit disqualification from the case.
• Judge Hayes ordered the City to make the 106 pages of documentation which allegedly supports the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller available to attorney Michael Stamp; the City had previously withheld the documentation from attorney Michael Stamp.
• Judge Hayes scheduled deadline dates in November and December for briefs involving justification by the City as to why it delayed the request for the disqualification of attorney Michael Stamp when attorney Michael Stamp had advised the city of his representation as early as May 2008 and briefs on the concepts of “prejudice” and “extreme prejudice” with respect to disqualification.
• Judge Hayes vacated the date for the Case Management Conference and scheduled a date for another Hearing on the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing his client Jane Miller in her lawsuit (M99513) for Friday, 18 December 2009 at 8:45 A.M in Courtroom 4, Salinas Courthouse.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
On City's Motion to Disqualify Attorney Stamp from Representing Jane Miller: Judge Hayes to Review City's Documentation 28 October 2009
UPDATE:
Sex Plot: Carmel’s alleged harassment case thickens, goes international, Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, October 29, 2009
The latest developments in the Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea lawsuit (M99513) involving "suspected retaliation, a judge's reproach, mounting legal bills and after-hours phone calls."
ABSTRACT: On Friday morning, 23 October 2009, the City’s Motion Hearing to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from his representation of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was conducted in the Courtroom of Judge Larry Hayes in Salinas. A summary of the proceeding and an ADDENDUM consisting of a link to the article, ‘Judge scolds Carmel for withholding documents in harassment case: City withheld documents from employee's lawyer in harassment case,’ from The Monterey County Herald, are presented. In June 2009, Miller, Jane Kingsley vs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513) was filed in Monterey County Superior Court alleging sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
On Friday morning, 23 October 2009, the City’s Motion Hearing to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from his representation of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was conducted in the Courtroom of Judge Larry Hayes. In his introductory remarks, Judge Hayes stated he was disappointed that the City withheld documents pertaining to their contention that attorney Michael Stamp should be disqualified due to his previous legal relationship with the City and the confidential information he has as a result that could assist him in representing his current client, Jane Miller. Moreover, Judge Hayes stated that he was disinclined to grant the City’s motion because the City failed to file lawsuits to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing any of five other city employees previously who had filed claims against the City over the past six years.
Attorney Suzanne Solomon, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, stated the city withheld the 106 pages because "Mr. Stamp has already breached his fiduciary duty and we're not inclined to give him documents that are 24 years old to refresh his memory."
Judge Larry Hayes disagreed with that assessment.
Later, Judge Larry Hayes asked attorney Suzanne Solomon how long it would take the City to compile the documentation. To which attorney Suzanne Solomon stated she had the documents and the Judge could review them that day. Judge Hayes stated his would not be able to review them that day and decided to set the date of Wednesday, 28 October 2009, to view the documents in his chambers. He further scheduled another court date of Friday, October 30, 2009 at 8:45 A.M. After hearing arguments Judge Hayes will issue his ruling.
ADDENDUM:
Judge scolds Carmel for withholding documents in harassment case: City withheld documents from employee's lawyer in harassment case, VIRGINIA HENNESSEY, Herald Salinas Bureau, The Monterey County Herald, 10/24/2009
Sex Plot: Carmel’s alleged harassment case thickens, goes international, Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, October 29, 2009
The latest developments in the Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea lawsuit (M99513) involving "suspected retaliation, a judge's reproach, mounting legal bills and after-hours phone calls."
ABSTRACT: On Friday morning, 23 October 2009, the City’s Motion Hearing to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from his representation of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was conducted in the Courtroom of Judge Larry Hayes in Salinas. A summary of the proceeding and an ADDENDUM consisting of a link to the article, ‘Judge scolds Carmel for withholding documents in harassment case: City withheld documents from employee's lawyer in harassment case,’ from The Monterey County Herald, are presented. In June 2009, Miller, Jane Kingsley vs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513) was filed in Monterey County Superior Court alleging sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
On Friday morning, 23 October 2009, the City’s Motion Hearing to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from his representation of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was conducted in the Courtroom of Judge Larry Hayes. In his introductory remarks, Judge Hayes stated he was disappointed that the City withheld documents pertaining to their contention that attorney Michael Stamp should be disqualified due to his previous legal relationship with the City and the confidential information he has as a result that could assist him in representing his current client, Jane Miller. Moreover, Judge Hayes stated that he was disinclined to grant the City’s motion because the City failed to file lawsuits to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing any of five other city employees previously who had filed claims against the City over the past six years.
Attorney Suzanne Solomon, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, stated the city withheld the 106 pages because "Mr. Stamp has already breached his fiduciary duty and we're not inclined to give him documents that are 24 years old to refresh his memory."
Judge Larry Hayes disagreed with that assessment.
Later, Judge Larry Hayes asked attorney Suzanne Solomon how long it would take the City to compile the documentation. To which attorney Suzanne Solomon stated she had the documents and the Judge could review them that day. Judge Hayes stated his would not be able to review them that day and decided to set the date of Wednesday, 28 October 2009, to view the documents in his chambers. He further scheduled another court date of Friday, October 30, 2009 at 8:45 A.M. After hearing arguments Judge Hayes will issue his ruling.
ADDENDUM:
Judge scolds Carmel for withholding documents in harassment case: City withheld documents from employee's lawyer in harassment case, VIRGINIA HENNESSEY, Herald Salinas Bureau, The Monterey County Herald, 10/24/2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
UPDATE: Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513)
ABSTRACT: The Motion Hearing regarding the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City for sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation is scheduled for Friday, October 23, 2009 at 8:45 A.M. at the Salinas Courthouse. HIGHLIGHTS OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP’S 8 OCTOBER 2009 RESPONSE TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP AS PLAINTIFF JANE MILLER’S ATTORNEY as presented in the article, Scandal-by-the-Sea, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, is provided. An ADDENDUM provides a link to the complete article.
INFORMATION ON MOTION HEARING:
MOTION HEARING: City’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney Michael Stamp as Plaintiff Jane Miller’s attorney
DATE & TIME: Friday, October 23, 2009 @ 8:45 A.M.
JUDGE: Hon. Larry E. Hayes
COURTHOUSE INFORMATION: Salinas Courthouse,
240 Church St., Salinas, CA 93901, (831) 775-5400
Department 4, East Wing - 2nd Floor
HIGHLIGHTS OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP’S 8 OCTOBER 2009 RESPONSE TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP AS PLAINTIFF JANE MILLER’S ATTORNEY (Credit: MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, see ADDENDUM)
• On “ethical conflict of interest:” “The city’s meager showing – an interested person’s unqualified conclusions about what unidentified documents ‘reflect’ – falls far short of the...direct evidence required by law.”
• Prior to the City’s Motion to disqualify Michael Stamp as Jane Miller’s attorney, Stamp had “been working on the Miller case for 16 months, and represented numerous other city employees for seven years.”
Timeline of Events:
• May 20, 2008: Letter from Stamp to the City Council “outlining Jane Miller’s complaint.”
• August 2008: Attorney Karen Kramer “advised Stamp Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) had retained her to investigate Miller’s claims.”
• October 17, 2008: Letter from Attorney Stamp to the City Council “alleging the city didn’t appropriately respond to Miller’s complaint.”
• October 23, 2008: Letter from Human Resources Manager Jane Miller to the City Council, “describing Guillen’s alleged inappropriate behavior toward his female subordinates.”
• Communications between Stamp, Karen Kramer (attorney hired by Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) to investigate Miller’s allegations) and LCW “regarding the city’s investigation into Miller’s complaint.”
• January 12, 2009: Letter from Stamp to Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) attorney Rick Bolanos, “alleging Burch had violated protocol by directly contacting Miller and making retaliatory demands on the city’s behalf.”
• June 17, 2009: Human Resources Manager Jane Miller files Complaint against the City in Monterey County Superior Court (M99513) alleging sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
• July 17, 2009: City denies all allegations in response.
• September 2009: City files Motion to disqualify Stamp as the attorney representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit.
ADDENDUM:
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, Scandal-by-the-Sea, Carmel harassment suit heats up amid legal scuffles, Kera Abraham, OCTOBER 15, 2009
INFORMATION ON MOTION HEARING:
MOTION HEARING: City’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney Michael Stamp as Plaintiff Jane Miller’s attorney
DATE & TIME: Friday, October 23, 2009 @ 8:45 A.M.
JUDGE: Hon. Larry E. Hayes
COURTHOUSE INFORMATION: Salinas Courthouse,
240 Church St., Salinas, CA 93901, (831) 775-5400
Department 4, East Wing - 2nd Floor
HIGHLIGHTS OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP’S 8 OCTOBER 2009 RESPONSE TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP AS PLAINTIFF JANE MILLER’S ATTORNEY (Credit: MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, see ADDENDUM)
• On “ethical conflict of interest:” “The city’s meager showing – an interested person’s unqualified conclusions about what unidentified documents ‘reflect’ – falls far short of the...direct evidence required by law.”
• Prior to the City’s Motion to disqualify Michael Stamp as Jane Miller’s attorney, Stamp had “been working on the Miller case for 16 months, and represented numerous other city employees for seven years.”
Timeline of Events:
• May 20, 2008: Letter from Stamp to the City Council “outlining Jane Miller’s complaint.”
• August 2008: Attorney Karen Kramer “advised Stamp Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) had retained her to investigate Miller’s claims.”
• October 17, 2008: Letter from Attorney Stamp to the City Council “alleging the city didn’t appropriately respond to Miller’s complaint.”
• October 23, 2008: Letter from Human Resources Manager Jane Miller to the City Council, “describing Guillen’s alleged inappropriate behavior toward his female subordinates.”
• Communications between Stamp, Karen Kramer (attorney hired by Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) to investigate Miller’s allegations) and LCW “regarding the city’s investigation into Miller’s complaint.”
• January 12, 2009: Letter from Stamp to Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) attorney Rick Bolanos, “alleging Burch had violated protocol by directly contacting Miller and making retaliatory demands on the city’s behalf.”
• June 17, 2009: Human Resources Manager Jane Miller files Complaint against the City in Monterey County Superior Court (M99513) alleging sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
• July 17, 2009: City denies all allegations in response.
• September 2009: City files Motion to disqualify Stamp as the attorney representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit.
ADDENDUM:
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, Scandal-by-the-Sea, Carmel harassment suit heats up amid legal scuffles, Kera Abraham, OCTOBER 15, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
‘Nothing’ versus ‘Nonsense’
ABSTRACT: Quotations from Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud and Michael Stamp, the attorney representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City alleging sex-based and age-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation, are juxtaposed. (Credit to Monterey County Weekly for reporting)
Mayor Sue McCloud, who usually humors Squid’s niggling questions, tried to make the whole mess go away: “You’re making a lot out of nothing, and I’m not gonna say anything more to you on this,” she said, and hung up.
(Source: CARMEL PORN, Squid Fry, Monterey County Weekly, JULY 16, 2009)
Versus
The city of Carmel-by-the-Sea has filed a motion to disqualify Stamp from a lawsuit by Carmel Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, alleging Stamp has a conflict of interest because he’s represented the city on personnel matters in the past. “There is no conflict,” Stamp responds. “The claim is nonsense. The motion is frivolous.”
(Source: Updates, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009)
NOTE: Motion Hearing on the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit alleging sex-based and age-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation is scheduled for Friday, 2 October 2009 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14, Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, Monterey Courthouse, 1200 Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA.
(Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea M99513)
Mayor Sue McCloud, who usually humors Squid’s niggling questions, tried to make the whole mess go away: “You’re making a lot out of nothing, and I’m not gonna say anything more to you on this,” she said, and hung up.
(Source: CARMEL PORN, Squid Fry, Monterey County Weekly, JULY 16, 2009)
Versus
The city of Carmel-by-the-Sea has filed a motion to disqualify Stamp from a lawsuit by Carmel Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, alleging Stamp has a conflict of interest because he’s represented the city on personnel matters in the past. “There is no conflict,” Stamp responds. “The claim is nonsense. The motion is frivolous.”
(Source: Updates, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009)
NOTE: Motion Hearing on the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit alleging sex-based and age-based employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation is scheduled for Friday, 2 October 2009 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14, Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, Monterey Courthouse, 1200 Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA.
(Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea M99513)
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Contradictory City Employees’ Statements?
ABSTRACT: On the one hand, three former Carmel-by-the-Sea employees and a long-time employee corroborated the allegations made by Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, according to reporting in the Monterey County Weekly. Quotations are presented. On the other hand, according to the City’s MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, dated September 1, 2009, the City asserts that upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, i.e., May 2008, the City hired an “outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims.” “The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaints. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated.” A COMMENT and two Questions are presented.
And while most current city employees are keeping quiet, three former employees who spoke with the Weekly on condition of anonymity backed up Miller’s claim, saying it’s mostly consistent with their experiences working under Guillen.
Another long-time employee said the female staffers in Guillen’s office are known as “Rich’s bitches.”
“It was a harem-like atmosphere,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “The working atmosphere in the city is stressful and demoralizing. People are afraid for their jobs.”
(Source: Monterey County, Confidential – Carmel Silent Scandal - Discreet is the word for accused city administrator, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, August 27, 2009)
Three former city employees, all of whom asked not to be identified by name, say the complaint is consistent with their impressions of Guillen’s workplace demeanor.
“The reason I quit was because of the way the city was going under his direction,” one says. “He was creating a divide-and-conquer kind of favoritism.”
“There were a lot of rumors going around,” says a second. “He did show favoritism to women he liked, to pull them to his side. He had pet names for people he favored, always women.”
“GUILLEN CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE FEMALES WERE PROTECTED WHEN THEY ENGAGED IN A SEXUALLY CHARGED MANNER.”
“I’m not in the least surprised that Guillen would have problems with subordinates,” adds a third. “It was fairly ugly there, and I suspect it still is.”
(Source: Hot Carmel Carmel HR Manager alleges harassment and discrimination, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, June 25, 2009)
Upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, the City hired an outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff refused to be interviewed as part of that investigation, despite repeated urgings from the City and the investigator. Nor did Plaintiff ever tell the City why she refused to be interviewed. The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaints. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and Plaintiff was informed of the results of the investigation. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit.
(Source: Case No. M99513, MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, September 1, 2009)
COMMENT:
• Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s complaint against the City includes the assertion that on or about May 20, 2008, attorney Michael Stamp wrote a letter to the mayor and city council advising them of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s behavior and seeking prompt action in response. The complaint further asserts that City Attorney Don Freeman stated that he would respond to the letter; however, that letter, and subsequent correspondence, received no response from the City, according to the lawsuit.
Questions: If as asserted, the City hired an “outside investigator” “upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations” and the investigator concluded the “Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated,” then why didn’t City Attorney Don Freeman communicate that information to attorney Michael Stamp, as he promised he would respond to attorney Stamp’s May 2008 letter? And instead of stating it’s “nothing,” why didn’t Mayor Sue McCloud respond to Squid Fry by stating an investigation had been conducted and the allegations were determined to be “unsubstantiated?”
And while most current city employees are keeping quiet, three former employees who spoke with the Weekly on condition of anonymity backed up Miller’s claim, saying it’s mostly consistent with their experiences working under Guillen.
Another long-time employee said the female staffers in Guillen’s office are known as “Rich’s bitches.”
“It was a harem-like atmosphere,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “The working atmosphere in the city is stressful and demoralizing. People are afraid for their jobs.”
(Source: Monterey County, Confidential – Carmel Silent Scandal - Discreet is the word for accused city administrator, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, August 27, 2009)
Three former city employees, all of whom asked not to be identified by name, say the complaint is consistent with their impressions of Guillen’s workplace demeanor.
“The reason I quit was because of the way the city was going under his direction,” one says. “He was creating a divide-and-conquer kind of favoritism.”
“There were a lot of rumors going around,” says a second. “He did show favoritism to women he liked, to pull them to his side. He had pet names for people he favored, always women.”
“GUILLEN CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE FEMALES WERE PROTECTED WHEN THEY ENGAGED IN A SEXUALLY CHARGED MANNER.”
“I’m not in the least surprised that Guillen would have problems with subordinates,” adds a third. “It was fairly ugly there, and I suspect it still is.”
(Source: Hot Carmel Carmel HR Manager alleges harassment and discrimination, Kera Abraham, Monterey County Weekly, June 25, 2009)
Upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, the City hired an outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff refused to be interviewed as part of that investigation, despite repeated urgings from the City and the investigator. Nor did Plaintiff ever tell the City why she refused to be interviewed. The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaints. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and Plaintiff was informed of the results of the investigation. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit.
(Source: Case No. M99513, MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, September 1, 2009)
COMMENT:
• Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s complaint against the City includes the assertion that on or about May 20, 2008, attorney Michael Stamp wrote a letter to the mayor and city council advising them of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s behavior and seeking prompt action in response. The complaint further asserts that City Attorney Don Freeman stated that he would respond to the letter; however, that letter, and subsequent correspondence, received no response from the City, according to the lawsuit.
Questions: If as asserted, the City hired an “outside investigator” “upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations” and the investigator concluded the “Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated,” then why didn’t City Attorney Don Freeman communicate that information to attorney Michael Stamp, as he promised he would respond to attorney Stamp’s May 2008 letter? And instead of stating it’s “nothing,” why didn’t Mayor Sue McCloud respond to Squid Fry by stating an investigation had been conducted and the allegations were determined to be “unsubstantiated?”
City’s MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513)
ABSTRACT: Selected excerpts of the City’s MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL (ten pages), prepared by Attorney Suzanne Solomon, LIBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE, are presented. A Motion Hearing is scheduled for October 2, 2009 at 9:00 A.M., Department 14. Basically, the City’s MOTION requests the Court disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing his client Jane Miller in her action against the City because attorney Michael Stamp previously represented the City in various personnel matters from 1985-2002; Attorney Stamp should therefore be disqualified “in order to prevent the improper use against the City of the City’s confidential information provided to Mr. Stamp during his prior representation of the City.”
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
MONTEREY DIVISION
MILLER, JANE KINGSLEY vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Case No. M99513
MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
Date: October 2, 2009
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Dept.: 14
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea request that the Court disqualify the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp and Michael W. Stamp from representing Plaintiff in this action due to Mr. Stamp’s ethical conflict of interest. Mr. Stamp’s representation of Plaintiff in this action violates California Role of Professional Conduct 3-310(E), because Mr. Stamp previously represented the City in various personnel matters from 1985-2002. In those matters, Mr. Stamp obtained confidential information that is material to the instant action. Among other things, he advised the City on the very sexual harassment policy upon which this lawsuit is based.
Mr. Stamp never provided written disclosure notifying the City that he planned to take on a new representation adverse to the City, nor did he obtain the City’s written consent to represent Plaintiff in this action, as required under Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 (A). Disqualification is required in order to prevent the improper use against the City of the City’s confidential information provided to Mr. Stamp.
II. SUMMARY OF FACTS
Beginning as early as 1985, Michael W. Stamp of the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp has provided legal advice to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on numerous personnel matters involving the very types of issues that are issue in this lawsuit.
• 1985: Attorney Stamp advised the City about selection and appointment of employees, and determining compensation.
• 1986: Attorney Stamp advised the City about what tasks should be included in job description; Stamp gave legal advice to the City involving the parameters of at-will employment as it related to City employees.
• 1987: Attorney Stamp advised City about how to regulate personal relationships within the workplace.
• 1991: Attorney Stamp gave legal advice about the City’s policy against sexual harassment, including making revisions to the policy and provided advice about whether, when and how to investigate complaints of sexual harassment; Stamp gave advice on drafting employment agreements between the City and certain employees.
• 2001 and 2002: Attorney Stamp represented the City in a matter involving an employee accused of inappropriate treatment of female employees; Stamp gave advice regarding the timing, method and scope of the investigation of the allegations against the employee, and various options to resolve the matter.
In 2008, Plaintiff went on sick leave and sent the City a letter accusing the city Administrator of sexual harassment, disparate treatment gender discrimination, age discrimination and retaliation. Prior to the complaint letter, Plaintiff had never reported any of the alleged conduct upon which this lawsuit is based.
Upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, the City hired an outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff refused to be interviewed as part of that investigation, despite repeated urgings from the City and the investigator. Nor did Plaintiff ever tell the City why she refused to be interviewed. The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaint. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and Plaintiff was informed of the results of the investigation. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit.
III. ARGUMENT
A. An Attorney Cannot Represent Interests Adverse to a Former Client Without the Former Client’s Informed Written Consent
Cited California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 (E), 3-310 (A)(1), 3-310 (A)(2)
1. Neither Michael Stamp nor the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp Sought or Obtained the City’s Informed Written Consent to their Representation of Plaintiff in this Action
B. Michael Stamp and the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp Should be Disqualified From Representing Plaintiff in this Action
1. Where an Attorney Represents a Party Suing A Former Client and There is a Substantial Relationship Between the Matters, the Disclosure of Confidential Information is Presumed and Disqualification Is Required
2. Mr. Stamp and His Firm Handled Personnel Matters for the City Involving Subjects That Are At Issue in This Lawsuit
Mr. Stamp has represented the City in numerous personnel matters involving the types of issues that are identical to those that will be litigated here: sexual harassment, workplace investigations, employee selection and appointment, regulation of personal relationships in the workplace, employee agreements, and medical leave.
3. This Court Must Presume that Mr. Stamp Obtained the City’s Confidential Information That is Material to This Action Because a Substantial Relationship Exists Between This Action and the Prior Personnel Matters That Mr. Stamp Handled for the City
4. Neither Michael Stamp nor the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp Sought or Obtained the City’s Informed Written Consent to their Representation of Plaintiff in This Action
Cited California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 (A)(1)
5. The Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp Must Be Vicariously Disqualified As Well
IV. CONCLUSION
Mr. Stamp and the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp accepted employment adverse to their former client, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, without providing any disclosure to the City of the consequences of that representation, and without seeking or obtaining the City’s informed written consent. Mr. Stamp violated this Rule of Professional Conduct and he and his law office should be disqualified in order to prevent the improper use against the City of the City’s confidential information provided to Mr. Stamp during his prior representation of the City
Dated: September 1, 2009
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
By: Suzanne Solomon
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
NOTE: MOTION based of DECLARATION OF HEIDI BURCH SUPPORTING MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, August 26, 2009
ADDENDUM:
Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3-310 Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests
(A) For purposes of this rule:
(1) "Disclosure" means informing the client or former client of the relevant circumstances and of the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences to the client or former client;
(2) "Informed written consent" means the client's or former client's written agreement to the representation following written disclosure;
(E) A member shall not, without the informed written consent of the client or former client, accept employment adverse to the client or former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or former client, the member has obtained confidential information material to the employment.
EXHIBIT A (Included with MOTION; from Plaintiff's Attorney to Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea)
Form Interrogatories-Employment Law
CONTENTS
200.0 Contract Formation
201.0 Adverse Employment Action
202.0 Discrimination—Interrogatories to Employee
203.0 Harassment—Interrogatories to Employee
204.0 Disability Discrimination
205.0 Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
206.0 Defamation
207.0 Internal Complaints
208.0 Governmental Complaints
209.0 Other Employment Claims by Employee or Against Employer
210.0 Loss of Income—Interrogatories to Employee
211.0 Loss of Income—Interrogatories to Employer
212.0 Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries—Interrogatories to Employee
213.0 Other Damages—Interrogatories to Employee
214.0 Insurance
215.0 Investigation
216.0 Denials and Special or Affirmative Defenses
217.0 Response to Request for Admissions
NOTE: Boxes marked by Plaintiff’s Attorney, as follows:
200.0 Contract Formation
200.1, 200.2, 200.3, 200.4, 200.5
210.0 Adverse Employment Action
201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.4, 201.6
207.0 Internal Complaints
207.1, 207.2
208.0 Governmental Complaints
208.1, 208.2
209.0 Other Employment Claim by Employee or Against Employer
209.2
214.0 Insurance
214.1, 214.2
215.0 Investigation
215.1, 215.2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
MONTEREY DIVISION
MILLER, JANE KINGSLEY vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Case No. M99513
MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
Date: October 2, 2009
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Dept.: 14
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea request that the Court disqualify the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp and Michael W. Stamp from representing Plaintiff in this action due to Mr. Stamp’s ethical conflict of interest. Mr. Stamp’s representation of Plaintiff in this action violates California Role of Professional Conduct 3-310(E), because Mr. Stamp previously represented the City in various personnel matters from 1985-2002. In those matters, Mr. Stamp obtained confidential information that is material to the instant action. Among other things, he advised the City on the very sexual harassment policy upon which this lawsuit is based.
Mr. Stamp never provided written disclosure notifying the City that he planned to take on a new representation adverse to the City, nor did he obtain the City’s written consent to represent Plaintiff in this action, as required under Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 (A). Disqualification is required in order to prevent the improper use against the City of the City’s confidential information provided to Mr. Stamp.
II. SUMMARY OF FACTS
Beginning as early as 1985, Michael W. Stamp of the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp has provided legal advice to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on numerous personnel matters involving the very types of issues that are issue in this lawsuit.
• 1985: Attorney Stamp advised the City about selection and appointment of employees, and determining compensation.
• 1986: Attorney Stamp advised the City about what tasks should be included in job description; Stamp gave legal advice to the City involving the parameters of at-will employment as it related to City employees.
• 1987: Attorney Stamp advised City about how to regulate personal relationships within the workplace.
• 1991: Attorney Stamp gave legal advice about the City’s policy against sexual harassment, including making revisions to the policy and provided advice about whether, when and how to investigate complaints of sexual harassment; Stamp gave advice on drafting employment agreements between the City and certain employees.
• 2001 and 2002: Attorney Stamp represented the City in a matter involving an employee accused of inappropriate treatment of female employees; Stamp gave advice regarding the timing, method and scope of the investigation of the allegations against the employee, and various options to resolve the matter.
In 2008, Plaintiff went on sick leave and sent the City a letter accusing the city Administrator of sexual harassment, disparate treatment gender discrimination, age discrimination and retaliation. Prior to the complaint letter, Plaintiff had never reported any of the alleged conduct upon which this lawsuit is based.
Upon learning of Plaintiff’s allegations, the City hired an outside investigator to investigate all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff refused to be interviewed as part of that investigation, despite repeated urgings from the City and the investigator. Nor did Plaintiff ever tell the City why she refused to be interviewed. The outside investigator interviewed 12 current and former City employees, including the witnesses Plaintiff had identified in her complaint. The investigator found that the Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and Plaintiff was informed of the results of the investigation. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit.
III. ARGUMENT
A. An Attorney Cannot Represent Interests Adverse to a Former Client Without the Former Client’s Informed Written Consent
Cited California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 (E), 3-310 (A)(1), 3-310 (A)(2)
1. Neither Michael Stamp nor the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp Sought or Obtained the City’s Informed Written Consent to their Representation of Plaintiff in this Action
B. Michael Stamp and the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp Should be Disqualified From Representing Plaintiff in this Action
1. Where an Attorney Represents a Party Suing A Former Client and There is a Substantial Relationship Between the Matters, the Disclosure of Confidential Information is Presumed and Disqualification Is Required
2. Mr. Stamp and His Firm Handled Personnel Matters for the City Involving Subjects That Are At Issue in This Lawsuit
Mr. Stamp has represented the City in numerous personnel matters involving the types of issues that are identical to those that will be litigated here: sexual harassment, workplace investigations, employee selection and appointment, regulation of personal relationships in the workplace, employee agreements, and medical leave.
3. This Court Must Presume that Mr. Stamp Obtained the City’s Confidential Information That is Material to This Action Because a Substantial Relationship Exists Between This Action and the Prior Personnel Matters That Mr. Stamp Handled for the City
4. Neither Michael Stamp nor the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp Sought or Obtained the City’s Informed Written Consent to their Representation of Plaintiff in This Action
Cited California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 (A)(1)
5. The Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp Must Be Vicariously Disqualified As Well
IV. CONCLUSION
Mr. Stamp and the Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp accepted employment adverse to their former client, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, without providing any disclosure to the City of the consequences of that representation, and without seeking or obtaining the City’s informed written consent. Mr. Stamp violated this Rule of Professional Conduct and he and his law office should be disqualified in order to prevent the improper use against the City of the City’s confidential information provided to Mr. Stamp during his prior representation of the City
Dated: September 1, 2009
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
By: Suzanne Solomon
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
NOTE: MOTION based of DECLARATION OF HEIDI BURCH SUPPORTING MOTION BY DEFENDANT CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, August 26, 2009
ADDENDUM:
Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3-310 Avoiding the Representation of Adverse Interests
(A) For purposes of this rule:
(1) "Disclosure" means informing the client or former client of the relevant circumstances and of the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences to the client or former client;
(2) "Informed written consent" means the client's or former client's written agreement to the representation following written disclosure;
(E) A member shall not, without the informed written consent of the client or former client, accept employment adverse to the client or former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or former client, the member has obtained confidential information material to the employment.
EXHIBIT A (Included with MOTION; from Plaintiff's Attorney to Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea)
Form Interrogatories-Employment Law
CONTENTS
200.0 Contract Formation
201.0 Adverse Employment Action
202.0 Discrimination—Interrogatories to Employee
203.0 Harassment—Interrogatories to Employee
204.0 Disability Discrimination
205.0 Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
206.0 Defamation
207.0 Internal Complaints
208.0 Governmental Complaints
209.0 Other Employment Claims by Employee or Against Employer
210.0 Loss of Income—Interrogatories to Employee
211.0 Loss of Income—Interrogatories to Employer
212.0 Physical, Mental, or Emotional Injuries—Interrogatories to Employee
213.0 Other Damages—Interrogatories to Employee
214.0 Insurance
215.0 Investigation
216.0 Denials and Special or Affirmative Defenses
217.0 Response to Request for Admissions
NOTE: Boxes marked by Plaintiff’s Attorney, as follows:
200.0 Contract Formation
200.1, 200.2, 200.3, 200.4, 200.5
210.0 Adverse Employment Action
201.1, 201.2, 201.3, 201.4, 201.6
207.0 Internal Complaints
207.1, 207.2
208.0 Governmental Complaints
208.1, 208.2
209.0 Other Employment Claim by Employee or Against Employer
209.2
214.0 Insurance
214.1, 214.2
215.0 Investigation
215.1, 215.2
Saturday, August 29, 2009
SAY WHAT?
ABSTRACT: SAY WHAT? comments by Mayor Sue McCloud, a long-time employee and reporter Kera Abraham from The Monterey County Weekly article entitled, “Silent Scandal - Discreet is the word for accused city administrator,” by Kera Abraham, are reproduced and COMMENTS are presented.
“I understand your point of view, but a person is innocent until proven guilty,’’ she told the Weekly recently, explaining her steadfast refusal to comment on the subject. “Perhaps the line of inquiry should be directed to the person who leveled the charges. We hope this will be all buttoned up – I shouldn’t say buttoned – in the not-too-distant future.” (Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud)
COMMENTS:
• Actually, a worthy public official would understand that when the public trust is at stake, it is not a matter of innocent until proven guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is the criminal standard, the preponderance of evidence is the civil standard, but in politics and government any breach of public trust is the standard.
• “The person who leveled the charges” has a name; her name is Jane Miller, the Human Resources Manager for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Instead of distracting attention away from herself and onto “the person,” Mayor Sue McCloud should answer questions asked of her by reporters.
• Mayor Sue McCloud hopes the litigation involving former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller will be “buttoned up” or “not buttoned” in the not-to-distant future. Suffice it to say that a deserving public servant should be more concerned with an investigation into credible allegations of sexual harassment, employment discrimination and retaliation in the workplace at City Hall and accountability to the public and less concerned with the matter being closed ASAP.
Another long-time employee said the female staffers in Guillen’s office are known as “Rich’s bitches.”
“It was a harem-like atmosphere,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “The working atmosphere in the city is stressful and demoralizing. People are afraid for their jobs.”
COMMENT:
• Recall Mayor Sue McCloud personally selected Rich Guillen to be City Administrator for the City without the benefit of a search for qualified applicants. Moreover, it is inconceivable that Mayor Sue McCloud did not know of the aforementioned atmosphere at City Hall over all these years and did nothing to ameliorate the situation, and possibly even encouraged it.
Mayor McCloud seems to keep such a tight grip on the city that it’s hard to imagine any repercussions coming to Guillen, her right-hand man, unless they’re court-ordered. In that case, she may have some explaining to do, too.
COMMENT:
• “A ‘tight grip’ on the city:” Translation: Mayor Sue McCloud might as well be considered the City Administrator herself as Rich Guillen takes all policy direction from Mayor Sue McCloud.
(Source: Silent Scandal - Discreet is the word for accused city administrator, Kera Abraham, The Monterey County Weekly, August 27, 2009)
“I understand your point of view, but a person is innocent until proven guilty,’’ she told the Weekly recently, explaining her steadfast refusal to comment on the subject. “Perhaps the line of inquiry should be directed to the person who leveled the charges. We hope this will be all buttoned up – I shouldn’t say buttoned – in the not-too-distant future.” (Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud)
COMMENTS:
• Actually, a worthy public official would understand that when the public trust is at stake, it is not a matter of innocent until proven guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is the criminal standard, the preponderance of evidence is the civil standard, but in politics and government any breach of public trust is the standard.
• “The person who leveled the charges” has a name; her name is Jane Miller, the Human Resources Manager for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Instead of distracting attention away from herself and onto “the person,” Mayor Sue McCloud should answer questions asked of her by reporters.
• Mayor Sue McCloud hopes the litigation involving former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller will be “buttoned up” or “not buttoned” in the not-to-distant future. Suffice it to say that a deserving public servant should be more concerned with an investigation into credible allegations of sexual harassment, employment discrimination and retaliation in the workplace at City Hall and accountability to the public and less concerned with the matter being closed ASAP.
Another long-time employee said the female staffers in Guillen’s office are known as “Rich’s bitches.”
“It was a harem-like atmosphere,” said the source, who asked not to be identified. “The working atmosphere in the city is stressful and demoralizing. People are afraid for their jobs.”
COMMENT:
• Recall Mayor Sue McCloud personally selected Rich Guillen to be City Administrator for the City without the benefit of a search for qualified applicants. Moreover, it is inconceivable that Mayor Sue McCloud did not know of the aforementioned atmosphere at City Hall over all these years and did nothing to ameliorate the situation, and possibly even encouraged it.
Mayor McCloud seems to keep such a tight grip on the city that it’s hard to imagine any repercussions coming to Guillen, her right-hand man, unless they’re court-ordered. In that case, she may have some explaining to do, too.
COMMENT:
• “A ‘tight grip’ on the city:” Translation: Mayor Sue McCloud might as well be considered the City Administrator herself as Rich Guillen takes all policy direction from Mayor Sue McCloud.
(Source: Silent Scandal - Discreet is the word for accused city administrator, Kera Abraham, The Monterey County Weekly, August 27, 2009)
Friday, July 17, 2009
Mayor Sue McCloud: "You're making a lot out of nothing,..."
“You’re making a lot out of nothing, and I’m not gonna say anything more to you on this,” Mayor Sue McCloud stated, and hung up.
(Source: MONTEREY COUTY WEEKLY, CARMEL PORN, Squid Fry, July 16, 2009)
QUESTION: Given the credibility, gravity and long-term nature of Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation allegations against City Administrator Rich Guillen, Mayor Sue McCloud and Council Members, is Mayor Sue McCloud’s response appropriate and professional?
ANSWER: Absolutely not! Moreover, Mayor Sue McCloud’s response indicates a willingness to diminish the serious allegations of an employee of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and an attempt to “make the whole mess go away.”
QUESTION: Will Carmel-by-the-Sea residents, taxpayers and voters hold the City Administrator, Mayor and City Council Members accountable for their alleged actions and inactions or will Carmel-by-the-Sea residents, taxpayers and voters play “dead” also?
ANSWER: TBD
(Source: MONTEREY COUTY WEEKLY, CARMEL PORN, Squid Fry, July 16, 2009)
QUESTION: Given the credibility, gravity and long-term nature of Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s employment discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation allegations against City Administrator Rich Guillen, Mayor Sue McCloud and Council Members, is Mayor Sue McCloud’s response appropriate and professional?
ANSWER: Absolutely not! Moreover, Mayor Sue McCloud’s response indicates a willingness to diminish the serious allegations of an employee of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and an attempt to “make the whole mess go away.”
QUESTION: Will Carmel-by-the-Sea residents, taxpayers and voters hold the City Administrator, Mayor and City Council Members accountable for their alleged actions and inactions or will Carmel-by-the-Sea residents, taxpayers and voters play “dead” also?
ANSWER: TBD
Monday, July 06, 2009
A Primer on Employment Discrimination & Sexual Harassment
ABSTRACT: With regard to Miller, Jane Kingsley v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (M99513), information links are provided on Sex-Based Discrimination, Age-Based Discrimination, Sexual Harassment and Retaliation. NOTES involving the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the City of Pacific Grove and former Pacific Grove Police Chief Scott Miller are presented. A COMMENT is made regarding the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s failure to investigate employment discrimination and sexual harassment allegations promptly and apparent failure to proactively implement an anti-employment discrimination and anti-sexual harassment policy.
In Miller, Jane Kingsley v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (M99513), Miller alleges sex-based discrimination, age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
Information (links) on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sex-Based Discrimination, Age-Based Discrimination, Sexual Harassment and Retaliation is provided, as follows:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Sex-Based Discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin, and religion.
Age Discrimination
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age.
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Retaliation
An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination.
NOTES:
• The Fair Employment and Housing act (FEHA), at Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), requires that individuals must exhaust their administrative remedies with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing by filing a complaint and obtaining a "right-to-sue notice" from the Department before filing a lawsuit under the FEHA.
The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing gave Jane Miller “the right to sue the city,” after Miller filed a complaint in July 2008, according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone.
•In contrast to the inactions of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City of Pacific Grove, under City Manager Jim Colangelo, hired an attorney to conduct an investigation into a police officer’s claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation and issue a report regarding the allegations in 2007, according to reporting by The Carmel Pine Cone. In fact, City Manager Jim Colangelo stated “I want to get the facts,” “I want to know if these allegations are true. If they are true, there will be consequences for the people involved. We don’t tolerate this type of behavior.” Moreover, Mayor Dan Cort stated the City “won’t tolerate discrimination." “I can tell you that the City of Pacific Grove does not condone discrimination or harassment based on one’s race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.”
• In 2003, Scott Miller, husband of Jane Miller, was fired as Pacific Grove police chief; after his firing by City Manager Ross Hubbard, Miller filed a wrongful termination claim against Pacific Grove (M69049, Miller, Scott vs. City of Pacific Grove) and was awarded a “substantial sum,” according to reporting by The Carmel Pine Cone. Scott Miller’s attorney was also attorney Michael Stamp.
COMMENT:
• Since the 20 May 2008 letter from Jane Miller’s attorney Michael Stamp to the Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members notifying them of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s behavior and seeking prompt action in response, the City apparently failed to respond and failed to investigate Miller’s allegations of employment discrimination and sexual harassment promptly. Accordingly, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea appears to not be committed to investigate allegations of employment discrimination and sexual harassment promptly, maintain confidentiality, and prohibit retaliation against employees who report incidents.
In Miller, Jane Kingsley v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (M99513), Miller alleges sex-based discrimination, age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
Information (links) on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sex-Based Discrimination, Age-Based Discrimination, Sexual Harassment and Retaliation is provided, as follows:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Sex-Based Discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin, and religion.
Age Discrimination
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age.
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Retaliation
An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination.
NOTES:
• The Fair Employment and Housing act (FEHA), at Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), requires that individuals must exhaust their administrative remedies with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing by filing a complaint and obtaining a "right-to-sue notice" from the Department before filing a lawsuit under the FEHA.
The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing gave Jane Miller “the right to sue the city,” after Miller filed a complaint in July 2008, according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone.
•In contrast to the inactions of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City of Pacific Grove, under City Manager Jim Colangelo, hired an attorney to conduct an investigation into a police officer’s claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation and issue a report regarding the allegations in 2007, according to reporting by The Carmel Pine Cone. In fact, City Manager Jim Colangelo stated “I want to get the facts,” “I want to know if these allegations are true. If they are true, there will be consequences for the people involved. We don’t tolerate this type of behavior.” Moreover, Mayor Dan Cort stated the City “won’t tolerate discrimination." “I can tell you that the City of Pacific Grove does not condone discrimination or harassment based on one’s race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.”
• In 2003, Scott Miller, husband of Jane Miller, was fired as Pacific Grove police chief; after his firing by City Manager Ross Hubbard, Miller filed a wrongful termination claim against Pacific Grove (M69049, Miller, Scott vs. City of Pacific Grove) and was awarded a “substantial sum,” according to reporting by The Carmel Pine Cone. Scott Miller’s attorney was also attorney Michael Stamp.
COMMENT:
• Since the 20 May 2008 letter from Jane Miller’s attorney Michael Stamp to the Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members notifying them of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s behavior and seeking prompt action in response, the City apparently failed to respond and failed to investigate Miller’s allegations of employment discrimination and sexual harassment promptly. Accordingly, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea appears to not be committed to investigate allegations of employment discrimination and sexual harassment promptly, maintain confidentiality, and prohibit retaliation against employees who report incidents.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
COMMENTARY: Termination & Resignations Necessary to Uphold Integrity of Public Trust Offices
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Code of Ethics states, in part, as follows:
“Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).”
Given the severity of the credible allegations of Human Resources Manager Jane Kingsley Miller regarding the intolerable and unacceptable workplace environment at City Hall created by City Administrator Rich Guillen and Mayor Sue McCloud, it is imperative that the following actions occur immediately:
• A Special City Council Meeting is convened for the purpose of voting to terminate Rich Guillen from employment as city administrator of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
• Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage tender their resignations as city council members of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
For arguably at least the last two years, Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage knew, or should have known, about the workplace environment at City Hall. Their actions, including but not limited to, voting to approve an increase in Rich Guillen’s salary and benefits during this period, and inactions, including but not limited to, failing to investigate Jane Miller’s serious complaints, represent an irreparable breach of public trust and “an injustice for all.”
Moreover, since 2000, with the election of Sue McCloud as mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and her selection of Rich Guillen as city administrator, our city government has been a government of, by, and for Sue McCloud. Now, it is time for Camelites to restore our city government to a government of the people, by the people, for the people of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea by demanding the termination from city employment of Rich Guillen as city administrator and the resignations of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage because elected officials and city employees are answerable and accountable to the people from whom all legitimate power emanates and for whom government exists. Otherwise, the constitutional principle that public office and public service is a public trust is nonexistence.
“Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).”
Given the severity of the credible allegations of Human Resources Manager Jane Kingsley Miller regarding the intolerable and unacceptable workplace environment at City Hall created by City Administrator Rich Guillen and Mayor Sue McCloud, it is imperative that the following actions occur immediately:
• A Special City Council Meeting is convened for the purpose of voting to terminate Rich Guillen from employment as city administrator of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
• Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage tender their resignations as city council members of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
For arguably at least the last two years, Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage knew, or should have known, about the workplace environment at City Hall. Their actions, including but not limited to, voting to approve an increase in Rich Guillen’s salary and benefits during this period, and inactions, including but not limited to, failing to investigate Jane Miller’s serious complaints, represent an irreparable breach of public trust and “an injustice for all.”
Moreover, since 2000, with the election of Sue McCloud as mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and her selection of Rich Guillen as city administrator, our city government has been a government of, by, and for Sue McCloud. Now, it is time for Camelites to restore our city government to a government of the people, by the people, for the people of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea by demanding the termination from city employment of Rich Guillen as city administrator and the resignations of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage because elected officials and city employees are answerable and accountable to the people from whom all legitimate power emanates and for whom government exists. Otherwise, the constitutional principle that public office and public service is a public trust is nonexistence.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513)
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)