ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Legal Pad | LA

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: Legal Pad | LA

L.A. DA not shielded from workplace retaliation suit

By Jonathan Hayter

ADVERTISEMENTS

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley is not entitled to qualified immunity from a retaliation claim filed by a deputy district attorney in his office who spoke publicly about problems tied to an investigation of a failed $200 million school construction project.

The deputy district attorney, David Eng, served on a task force to investigate fraud and environmental crimes associated with construction of the Los Angeles Unified School District?s Belmont Learning Complex, which was halted in 1999. He was demoted and falsely charged of a misdemeanor relating to the misuse of office computers after concluding, as part of the task force, that no crimes had been committed. Cooley was elected in 2000 on a campaign to prosecute individuals tied to the Belmont project.

Ruling on an interlocutory appeal, the 9th Circuit found that Eng was within his First Amendment rights when he blew the whistle on a task force colleague who had leaked to the Internal Revenue Service that the school district had committed fraud when purchasing the Belmont facility.  The panel also found that a lawyer Eng hired to defend him against the misdemeanor charges, Mark Geragos, was within his First Amendment rights to speak about the retaliation against Eng in a 2003 Los Angeles Times article.

The panel, in its Jan. 14 decision, held that ?viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Eng, the full range of adverse employment action appears to have been a politically-motivated effort to silence Eng, who stood to embarrass Cooley by undermining a central plank in his campaign platform.?

?Obviously, we?re awfully happy and feel vindicated by the 9th Circuit,? said Jay Ritt, a partner at Bensinger, Ritt, Tai & Thvedt in Pasadena, Calif., who represents Eng.

?The bottom line is we should be able to go to a jury now, which is good because that?s all we really wanted for the last couple of years.?

Eng, who now works in Compton, Calif., for the District Attorney?s Office, filed the suit in 2005. Other defendants in the case are Steven Sowders, head deputy district attorney, Curt Livesay, former chief deputy district attorney, Anthony Patchett, former special assistant to the District Attorney, and Curtis A. Hazell, assistant district attorney.

A lawyer for Cooley and the other defendants, Jin S. Choi, a partner at Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, in Glendale, Calif., did not return a call for comment.

-- Amanda Bronstad

Full post as published by Legal Pad | LA on January 15, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0024 secs (from cache 10/31/26 14:57:04)