San Diego County received whistleblower complaints about the Public Defender’s office in 2020.

In November 2020, whistleblowers alerted San Diego County to problems at its public defender’s office. The warning comes two years before a jury awarded the ex-employee several million dollars in damages earlier this month in his wrongful termination lawsuit, KPBS has learned.

At least two whistleblowers have filed complaints with San Diego County’s oversight body, the Office of Ethics and Compliance (OEC), according to sources close to the county.

Whistleblowers echoed the accusation of former Deputy Public Defender Zach Davina, who filed a wrongful termination suit against the county. Davina, who is gay, said that during his September 2020 tenure review hearing, he was asked if he was too flamboyant and enthusiastic, and if his clients’ cases were hurt as a result.

Earlier this month, a San Diego Supreme Court jury found that Davina was discriminated against because of his gender expression and prosecuted by oversight bodies. The jury awarded him $2.6 million in lost wages and emotional distress.

One of the whistleblowers also pointed out that Sherry Stone, the head of the office, had violated conflict of interest rules. Stone served on tenure review panels for both Davina and former Deputy Public Defender Michelle Reynoso.

Stone appeared on these panels after learning that both Davina and Reynoso and other deputy public defenders complained about racially insensitive comments Stone allegedly made to the lawyer in the office. They asked her to be demoted and receive diversity training.

Reynoso also filed a wrongful termination suit against the county. In addition to complaining about Stone’s comments to a colleague, Reynoso claims to have been discriminated against because of her work with Black Lives Matter in her private time. Her trial is scheduled for February.

County spokesman Mike Workman told KPBS via email that the OEC was indeed investigating whistleblower complaints about the public defender’s office. But he said the investigation was suspended after the district learned that two of the three fired deputy public defenders intended to sue.

“Once a trial starts, it’s not uncommon for any investigation to be suspended, which is essentially what the county did, and that’s because the trial itself has a completely different set of rules for finding out what happened.” San Diego-based legal analyst Dan Eaton said.

According to sources, the whistleblower’s first complaint was filed on November 5, 2020, and the second the next day. Attorney Chris Ludmer, who represents both of the fired state criminal deputies, said he notified the county three weeks later that the lawsuit was pending. Ludmer said the OEC never contacted either Davina or Reynoso for an interview about whistleblower complaints.

However, according to testimony at Davina’s trial, the OEC filed complaints with the leadership of public defenders. According to the testimony, Angela Bartosik, a warden involved in the dismissals, wrote a letter to the OEC stating that the complaints were unfounded.

This conclusion was based on an internal Human Resources report signed by Public Defender Randy Meese. Mize confessed during Davina’s trial that he signed the report knowing that it contained false statements from his superiors.

County officials declined to answer a number of questions regarding their investigation, including when it began, how many people were interviewed before it was suspended, and whether it needed to be delayed due to lawsuits.

“I’ll bet 10 to 1 that the decision to suspend the investigation was dictated by the lawyers involved in the litigation or the organization’s lawyers,” said Steven Gillers, professor of law at New York University. “This is very similar to what lawyers would say. `Don’t do anything else. We don’t know how this will affect the lawsuit. We’ll be back for you.'”

Gillers said that in cases where the alleged harm — discrimination, harassment and retaliation — is illegal and could still affect day-to-day work, it is the responsibility of the employer to investigate. This is true even if lawsuits have been filed, he said.

“Because the organization makes sure that everything is done right, regardless of the legal consequences in the organization,” he said.

Gillers added that workplace pressure to investigate only increases when jurors, as in Davina’s case, agree with the plaintiff that the employer did indeed discriminate and retaliate. The jury also found that the county did nothing to prevent discrimination and retaliation against Davina.

“The heat is on and they have a strong commitment to find out what’s going on, which convinced the jury to reach a multi-million dollar verdict,” Gillers said.

Content Source

California Press News – Latest News:
Los Angeles Local News || Bay Area Local News || California News || Lifestyle News || National news || Travel News || Health News

Related Articles

Back to top button