By CHRIS CHANDLERLos Alamos County, through the Municipal’s League’s Self-Insurer’s Fund, has settled several employment cases totaling about $4.5 million in the last four years. Consider the following:
2012: A Recreation Department Senior Office Specialist received a $175,000 settlement. Her complaint alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and prima facie tort against the County and other Rec Department employees.
2012: An Assistant County Administrator received an $800,000 settlement. Her complaint alleged sex discrimination and retaliation by senior County managers.
2013: A Detective received a $600,000 settlement. Police Department managers are named in the case, which included claims of civil rights violations. The fact pattern in this case is particularly unusual, and included an incident where the Detective was allegedly compelled to go to a psychiatric institution by his supervisors.
2015: A female firefighter received a $850,000 settlement. Her complaint alleged sexual harassment and retaliation. A fire captain was criminally charged with voyeurism and tampering with evidence. This case was referred to by some in the press as the “Bathroom Cam Case”. The County paid $500,000 of the settlement because it had exceeded its policy limits for the year at issue.
Two weeks ago: Three former Police Department employees, two Commanders and a Detective received a $2 million settlement. Their claims included wrongful discharge and retaliation in violation of the state’s whistle-blower protection act. The sad irony is that the County through its insurer, ended up paying both sides in this dispute: the 2013 Detective settlement ($600,000) and now the individuals whom the Detective claimed acted wrongfully against him.
Two weeks before the scheduled trial, the County Manager informed Council that he and the County Attorney participated in a settlement conference with the plaintiffs but that there was no need to consult the Council as no County money was used to pay the settlement. Press reports indicate that the County agreed to expunge their records and other monetary commitments were made without Council approval. In addition, the County was sanctioned in this case and ordered to pay $21,000 for discovery abuses.
Of course a settlement in and of itself does not equate to culpability. However, it is fair to say that these are not nuisance value settlements and that it is reasonable to conclude that the Self-Insurers Fund’s evaluation concluded there was a good chance that a trial would find liability.
With this series of very high dollar settlements in such a short period of time, the citizens are right to ask if there are systemic problems that need to be corrected. What does the Council intend to do to determine if there is a pattern of improper management actions? How does the Council intend to identify the practices, policies, and attitudes that may have contributed to poor management decisions? And how will the Council ensure that actions are taken to correct whatever problems are ultimately uncovered?
The publicity generated by these litigations and large settlements reflects poorly on the County.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys pay attention to where the money is, and Los Alamos is looking a lot like a gold mine. Having a litigation history such as the one described here encourages additional litigation. If you are known as an employer who will pay and pay handsomely, why wouldn’t a plaintiff’s lawyer roll the dice and file a case? The County’s track record suggests an easy settlement is the likely outcome. In addition, one must also wonder how all these claims and settlements have impacted the County’s premiums.
The County Council has a responsibility to ensure that the County is managed effectively, and lawfully. The Council needs to be briefed by outside counsel about on-going litigation so that it understands the County’s exposure and vulnerabilities. The Council should also implement protocols to ensure that it is involved in the decision-making before commitments are made.
The bottom line: Council has a duty to exercise oversight over County management.
