City attorney files claim against city

Deirdre Newman

Six months after taking sick leave, City Atty. Jerry Scheer has taken

the first step toward filing a $5-million lawsuit against the city,

making 29 claims, including violation of the Family and Medical Leave

Act, slander, libel and retaliation.

Scheer, 63, filed a tort claim on April 24 that is required as the

first step of a lawsuit against public entities. The City Council

will consider the claim on Monday.

Dan Stormer, Scheer’s representative, said the claim is necessary

because of the despicable treatment Scheer received at the hands of

city leaders.

“They have publicly defamed him, not followed their own

procedures, tried to humiliate him, ruined his job situation, sent

him home without any appropriate procedure, treated him as shabbily

as anybody can ever treat an employee, and have done so maliciously,”

Stormer said.

Peter Brown, who has represented the city in its dealings with

Scheer, discounted the myriad claims.

“I’ve analyzed the causes of action and the actions of the City

Council, and I believe that the actions of the City Council, going

back to September 2002, were legitimate and were in their discretion

as a matter of law,” Brown said.

Scheer’s travails began in July 2001, when Senior Deputy City

Atty. Marianne Reger made a written complaint against him containing

a number of accusations, Scheer’s claim states. Scheer was eventually

cleared of the allegations by an independent counsel and independent

investigator in April 2002.

In September 2002, Scheer was placed on administrative leave

pending an investigation.

The council decided the matter in a closed session, without Scheer

present, and did not let him ask to have grievances against him

discussed in an open session. That meeting was deemed a violation of

the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law, by Acting City Atty. Tom

Wood.

Also in September, the City Council initiated its own internal

investigation and financial audit of the Office of the City Attorney,

the claim states.

But Scheer was never informed about what the investigation

entailed, Stormer said, and to the best of his knowledge, no

investigation or audit ever happened.

“They have essentially ruined his legal career by innuendo,”

Stormer said.

Brown said he wasn’t at liberty to comment on the investigation

since it is a personnel matter.

On Oct. 4, 2002, the council voted, again in closed session, to

reinstate Scheer. He returned to work Oct. 7 against his doctor’s

orders, since the city’s treatment had created severe emotional

distress, his claim states.

Scheer returned to work part-time, but could not complete his

responsibilities because he was unable to log onto his computer, the

claim states. The computer division had also downloaded everything

from his computer while he had been suspended, the claim states.

Later in October, Scheer received a letter from Brown that he had

to work full-time or resign. Scheer chose to take sick leave on Oct.

21. When Scheer was informed that he had exhausted all permissible

leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, he sought a reasonable

accommodation for his disability that the city rejected, the claim

states.

Scheer has suffered losses, including past and future income,

damage to his reputation and attorney fees estimated to be in excess

of $5 million, the claim states.

Current City Council members said they can’t discuss the claim.

Former Mayor Karen Robinson, who is mentioned in the claim, did not

return phone calls for comment.

Jerry Scheer’s phone number on the claim is not a working number.

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa and may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.