A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge dismissed former City Manager Geoff Dolan’s lawsuit against the City of Manhattan Beach and former City Attorney Robert Wadden on Tuesday morning, halting the legal battle centered around the city’s release of documents pertaining to Dolan’s December 2009 resignation.
Judge Susan Bryant-Deason granted the city’s request to dismiss the complaint – the city had argued that its disclosures were protected under California’s Anti-SLAPP Law. The Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) Law allows for an expedited dismissal of a complaint if it arises from an organization or individual exercising free speech about an issue of public interest.
“This is a great victory for the city,” said City Attorney Roxanne Diaz, after the hearing.
In November 2009, city officials received an anonymous letter accusing Dolan of sexual harassment at a staff retreat in Pismo Beach the previous month. On Dec. 13 of that year, he and the city entered into a separation agreement in which he offered his resignation in exchange for confidentiality and $194,000 in severance pay.
The public was puzzled by Dolan’s abrupt resignation – he’d served the city 15 years – and, along with the media, sought answers. Open government activist Richard McKee subsequently sued the city for violating the Brown Act by not providing appropriate public notice about a closed-session City Council meeting to discuss Dolan’s departure. The existence of the anonymous letter was made public while Wadden was defending the city in the McKee action. As part of a settlement with McKee, the city released the anonymous letter.
The city’s position was that the public’s interest in the terms of Dolan’s resignation trumped his privacy interests. “Even an accusation, and even an arguably unreliable one, that the highest ranking official got drunk and made inappropriate sexual advances toward an employee under his direct supervision, and that ultimately resulted in the City paying out over a quarter of a million dollars to the official, is without question a matter of public interest,” the city argued, in a memorandum.
Patricio Barrera, Dolan’s attorney, argued that Wadden violated attorney-client privilege by disclosing the existence of the anonymous letter. Barrera also argued that at the time of the disclosure, Dolan was not a public figure. “In fact, Dolan was unemployed at the time of the wrongful disclosures and thus had greater privacy rights than a current employee or an elected official,” Barrera wrote in a responding memorandum.
The city countered that Wadden was no longer representing Dolan in the McKee action at the time of the disclosure, and that that the release of the letter was consistent with the California Public Records Act.
Judge Bryant-Deason said that there was no evidence that the information disclosed was protected by attorney-client privilege – “therefore, the plaintiff is not likely to prevail on the merits of this malpractice course of action,” Bryant-Deason said, during Tuesday’s hearing.
Barrera believed otherwise, noting after the hearing, “Certain documents should’ve been released, like the employment contract; they could’ve released redacted portions of resignation agreement. But the anonymous letter itself should not have been released.”
Barrera plans to appeal the decision within 60 days. “If [the judge] looked at the facts, I’m confident that she would have reached a different ruling, so we intend to appeal,” he said.
The Court of Appeal could take up to a year to respond, Barrera said. “No matter what was going to happen today, it probably would have resulted in the delay of at least a year,” he said. “I just would’ve preferred to be on the other side of that appeal.”
Dolan is still having trouble finding a job, Barrera said. “If you Google him, all these issues come up, and no city right now wants to take a shot at hiring,” Barrera said, adding that prior to the release of the letter, Dolan had lined up two job opportunities.
In September of last year, Wadden filed a $1.5 million claim against the city of Manhattan Beach for age discrimination, breach of contract, defamation and interference with economic opportunity. He was terminated from his position in April, after the McKee case was settled. When asked if Tuesday’s outcome will have an impact on Wadden’s claim, Diaz said, “Right now, I think were just going to take this case first and deal with Mr. Wadden’s claim at a later date.”
