The former Santa Barbara County public defender in a lawsuit accused Santa Barbara County CEO Mike Brown of discriminatory, harassing and retaliatory behavior that included yelling, screaming, swearing and spitting — allegations that drew a strong response Thursday from a county spokesman and county Supervisor Brooks Firestone.
James Egar described in a lawsuit a series of confrontations occurring between January 2000, when Egar began to serve as public defender, and July 14 of last year, when he says he was "constructively terminated" after unsuccessfully pushing for better working conditions for himself and his employees.
In addition to Brown, the county government is named as a defendant — for negligence in allegedly failing to "properly train and educate" Brown in an effort to correct his behavior and what had become a hostile and intimidating work environment.
On Thursday, Firestone in a statement called the suit "without merit and unfortunate."
"The county will vigorously defend itself against this suit," Firestone stated. "I have the utmost confidence in the professionalism and competence of our chief executive, Mike Brown, and expect the matter will be settled quickly.”
Eager, his lawyer Janean Daniels, and Brown could not be reached Thursday. However, county spokesman William Boyer echoed Firestone in his defense of Brown.
“Our general response right now is that the lawsuit is without merit the allegations are not true,” Boyer said Thursday. “This is exactly the type of frivolous lawsuit that wastes taxpayers’ money.”
Egar stated in the lawsuit that he spoke with county supervisors to air his concerns before quitting his job. He seeks undefined compensatory and punitive damages.
According to the 50-page suit filed May 18 in Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Egar has suffered a substantial loss of earnings, compensation, employment-related opportunities, and other employment benefits.
In the suit, Egar stated he sought help from Brown to correct unsafe and unhealthy working conditions at the Public Defender's Office that included a lack of parity in staffing, resources, and compensation between his office and the county District Attorney’s Office.
“Deputy public defenders in his office had previously agreed to discontinue their union activities and disband their union based upon a representation by the county that such parity would be maintained, when in fact it had not been,” the suit states, adding juvenile attorneys had carried caseloads “more than three times appropriate standards, and that misdemeanor attorneys had carried caseloads more than four times appropriate standards.”
The situation frayed nerves, “taking a significant toll” on staff as well as clients, according to the document.
Egar sought help starting in November 2003, when he sent a memo to county officials informing them that his office could only avoid a declaration of unavailability for cases if the county provided additional resources, the document states.
In a series of meetings between Egar and Brown that followed, Brown alternately promised more resources or became abusive, the lawsuit alleges.
At times, according to the suit, Brown subjected Egar “to hostile and abusive tirades in which he became visibly angry and red-faced, yelled, screamed and swore ... spit at (Egar) and verbally disparaged, insulted and threatened (him) in an intimidating manner.”
Egar was contacted in early 2005 by his former employer, Orange County, which had adopted a new retirement plan, the suit states.
If he returned to work there, if even for a short span of time, according to the document, he could lawfully earn higher retirement benefits.
Brown told Egar he did not want him to leave Santa Barbara, and in exchange promised to improve working conditions at the Public Defenders Office, the lawsuit states.
Egar “did not return to work for Orange County, based on Brown’s promises and their agreement,” the lawsuit alleges. “After the June 30, 2005 Orange County retirement-benefits expiration period had passed, Brown reneged on his promise to … hire two new full-time attorneys for the Public Defender’s Office. As a result, the Office’s caseload and workload remained dangerously and unreasonably excessive and burdensome.”
|
