Report Police Abuse (707) 542-7224

originally published at: http://www.pressdemocrat.com

Fired Santa Rosa police captain’s lawsuit headed back to federal court

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:44 p.m.

Santa Rosa city attorneys are attempting to move the revived lawsuit of a fired police captain back to federal court, where they won a partial dismissal last year.

Former Santa Rosa Police Department second-in-command Jamie Mitchel filed an amended lawsuit in Sonoma County Superior Court in September, alleging he was wrongfully terminated and that his privacy rights were violated.

City Attorney Caroline Fowler said Monday the city has filed papers to move the case to federal court, arguing that Mitchel’s claims relate to federal statutes.

Generally, there are no hearings in such a move, Fowler said, unless Mitchel contends the federal court doesn’t have jurisdiction.

The case may be assigned to the same judge who heard the case last year, Susan Illston. Illston dismissed the case on several grounds, ruling that further legal remedies had to be exhausted before Mitchel could bring his suit back.

He filed the amended complaint after his civil service arbitration hearing concluded this year. The three-member panel, in a split decision, upheld Mitchel’s termination.

City Manager Jeff Kolin fired Mitchel, 54, in May 2008 in the wake of several complaints from police department employees related to gender discrimination and retaliation from ex-Chief Ed Flint and Mitchel.

In a 19-page ruling, the panel ruled his firing was appropriate based on his explanations of his discussions with others about the complaints, not because of his behavior toward the complainants.

Flint was forced out and Mitchel fired. The city paid the six complainants, some of whom no longer work for the city, a total of $120,000.

Fowler said the city also will ask the federal court to dismiss the case and keep under seal parts of Mitchel’s lawsuit filed in September.

Mitchel’s attorney, Scott Lewis, didn’t return a call Monday seeking comment.

Along with his lawsuit, Mitchel filed a lengthy transcript of the 11-day arbitration hearing with the testimony of 31 witnesses, including many police department employees who described incidents of unprofessional behavior and disparaging comments from police managers.

The city also wanted the arbitration panel’s written ruling sealed.

Sonoma County Judge Elaine Rushing tentatively sealed the documents, however they had been public for more than two weeks, so it was unclear what effect the sealing would have.

Rushing set a hearing for Nov. 10 on the issue, but that dispute also may be moved to federal court.

The complaints brought to a head dysfunction and discrimination within the police department that some say has been present for years. Many in the department took sides and Mitchel’s firing became a center point.

Overall, the city has spent more than $830,000 to fire Mitchel, force out Flint, settle with the complainants and pay their legal fees.

republished from: http://www.pressdemocrat.com

Court seals testimony of Santa Rosa police internal complaints

By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 7:27 p.m.

A Sonoma County judge on Wednesday temporarily sealed portions of a lawsuit filed by a former Santa Rosa police captain who was fired last year but is seeking reinstatement.

After reviewing legal briefs by both sides in her chambers on Wednesday afternoon, Judge Elaine Rushing ordered two documents the city of Santa Rosa wants sealed to be removed from public access pending a Nov. 10 hearing.

The sealed documents contain the testimony of 31 people, including 15 current police department employees, about their perceptions of discrimination, retaliation and other dysfunction within the police department.

However, the practical effects of the ruling were unclear. The documents, which were filed on Sept. 30 as part of former police Capt. Jamie Mitchel’s amended lawsuit, have been available for public inspection since then.

The documents now sealed are approximately 2,000 pages of transcripts from an 11-day arbitration hearing Mitchel sought after he was fired and the panel’s 2-1 written decision upholding his termination.

Former police Chief Ed Flint, Mitchel, current Chief Tom Schwedhelm and the employees who had filed complaints all testified under oath at the hearings, held in several sessions before three arbitrators between October 2008 and January of this year.

Two members of the panel, one selected by the city and one neutral – both women – said Mitchel’s conduct warranted termination. A third, selected by Mitchel – a man – sided with him in saying his conduct wasn’t improper.

Mitchel was fired in May 2008 after four city employees filed gender discrimination, harassment and retaliation complaints against Flint. Two of the complaints also named Mitchel, who was one of Flint’s seconds in command. Flint was forced out in July 2008.

Mitchel has maintained his innocence.

Two additional employees have since officially complained to the city, according to City Attorney Caroline Fowler.

According to court documents, one of those is Sgt. Lisa Banayat, the department’s media spokeswoman. An 18-year veteran, she is the highest-ranking female officer the department has ever had.

The city settled the complaints with a total payout of $120,000. Fowler refused to disclose how much went to each recipient, citing “confidential personnel issues.”

The city has spent more than $830,000 to fire Mitchel, force Flint out, settle the complaints and sponsor team-building efforts to try to eliminate divisiveness in the department.

In its motion seeking to seal the arbitration transcripts and ruling, the city argued that the papers “contain confidential personnel information of civilian employees and police officers in the department that must be sealed form public inspection.”

“Our position is the records Mitchel filed with his latest case are confidential and that he violated those provisions by filing the documents and is violating the privacy rights of other employees,” Fowler said.

In his original lawsuit, filed in May 2008, Mitchel argued that Fowler and other city employees broke the law by violating his privacy rights in releasing the contents of the city’s investigation to the complainants and their lawyer.

“It is ironic that Mitchel has tried to have me criminally prosecuted and sued the city for alleged violations of his privacy rights and then files these documents disclosing information and violating the privacy rights of other employees,” Fowler said.

In October last year, a federal court judge dismissed Mitchel’s suit, saying he needed to exhaust other legal avenues first, including arbitration. The judge ruled his privacy rights weren’t violated, but that he could still argue that he was retaliated against for speaking out and that his due process rights were violated with his termination.