Former city attorney refiles claim
Deirdre Newman
Former City Atty. Jerry Scheer has refiled a claim against the city,
tired of the six defendants dragging their feet on a settlement
agreement to his lawsuit.
The claim makes the same 29 complaints that were in the original
tort claim he filed in April, including violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act, slander, libel and retaliation. Scheer filed his
lawsuit in September.
In October, city leaders announced they were settling the lawsuit
for $750,000.
Almost two months later, not all of the parties to the lawsuit
have signed off on it, said Dan Stormer, Scheer’s attorney.
The lawsuit named as defendants Senior Deputy City Atty. Marianne
Milligan -- who was known as Marianne Reger when the suit was filed
-- former councilwomen Linda Dixon and Karen Robinson, Mayor Gary
Monahan and Councilwoman Libby Cowan.
Refiling the tort claim, a first step toward filing a lawsuit,
rewinds the legal process to the beginning and starts the taxpayers’
tab running again, Stormer said.
“[The defendants] certainly are welcome to come talk to us again
about the concept of settlement,” Stormer said. “We’ll be much less
inclined to be reasonable than we were before. I’ve been doing this
for 30 years and have never seen a city act so irresponsibly.”
Melanie Poturica, who represents the city, said the defendants
intend to follow through with their commitment to settle. The delay
is because of the number of defendants that have to sign the
agreement, she said.
“They city is doing everything it can to get the matter settled
that [it] agreed [to],” Poturica said.
A secondary reason Scheer decided to lob another legal pitch at
the city is because he took offense at a statement Mayor Gary Monahan
made in the Daily Pilot on Dec. 18, Stormer said. Monahan said that
Scheer was hired without a recruitment process, then went on to say,
“And that’s a fatal flaw that we can’t have happen.”
Stormer said Monahan’s statement violated a clause in the
settlement agreement that prohibited any of the parties in the
lawsuit from making disparaging comments about each other.
“If the city will not only not meet its financial obligations, but
won’t meet its moral obligations and agreements it signed on to take
part in, how can you trust anything they’re going to do?” Stormer
said.
Monahan declined to comment.
The original tort claim charged that Scheer suffered losses in
excess of $5 million.
The lawsuit that followed was based on a series of events starting
in July 2001 when Milligan made a written complaint against Scheer
containing a number of accusations. Scheer was eventually cleared of
the allegations by an independent counsel and independent
investigator in April 2002.
But 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.
Also that month, the council initiated its own internal
investigation and financial audit of the Office of the City Attorney.
Cowan and Robinson were in charge of the investigation.
On Oct. 4, 2002, the council voted, again in closed session, to
reinstate Scheer. He returned to work on Oct. 7 against his doctor’s
orders because the city’s treatment had created severe emotional
distress, the lawsuit claims.
Scheer returned to work part-time but could not complete his
responsibilities because he was unable to log onto his computer,
according to the lawsuit. The computer division had also downloaded
everything from his computer while he was suspended, the lawsuit
stated.
Later in October, Scheer received a notice that he had to work
full-time or resign. Scheer chose to take sick leave on Oct. 21.
Stormer said he believed the reason so much time has elapsed
without finalization of the settlement agreement is because one of
the defendants is not amenable to it. He didn’t venture to guess
which one that might be.
Scheer signed off on the settlement out of loyalty to the city,
Stormer said.
“They had a wonderful committed employee who doesn’t want to be in
the situation where he is,” Stormer said. “He sacrifices to reach an
agreement because it was in everybody’s best interest, and then, they
slap him in the face by not signing it and violating the terms of
agreement they claim they were bound by.”
* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa and may be reached at (949)
574-4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.