After reading the Press’ recent article, “Police captain files suit against city,” on April 1 regarding the recent filing of lawsuits by Elizabeth Allred and Ethel McFarland, former fire department Chief Bosch and police Capt. John Espinoza, I took some time to look into the Tracy Press archives and the City Council meeting minutes so I could gain a better perspective of the facts from surrounding these matters.
From my research, I have found that these situations have been going on for at least two years (Allred and McFarland), one year (Bosch), and most recently the issues surrounding Espinoza’s case. I also found out the Allred-McFarland case and the Bosch case have been discussed by the City Council on several occasions prior to these former and current employees filing suits.
I must ask why these cases, which specifically list Maria Olvera, Tracy’s human resources director, and police Chief Janet Thiessen, have been allowed to proceed to the point of litigation. I must also ask why Ms. Olvera is allowed to remain with the city of Tracy following three legal filings that have named her, specifically. The reason for my disgust and frustration is that it appears the mayor and council have decided to take a hands-off approach to dealing with these issues.
That being said, even if the city is in a position to prevail regarding these matters, it seems to me that we the taxpayers are the real losers. We are being forced to spend public tax dollars to defend municipal bureaucrats who apparently have been allowed to create the perception, if not the reality, that the city of Tracy is a hostile working environment.
It seems to me that when employees feel threatened enough to file suit, they are usually justified in doing so. So my question is: At what point do our elected and appointed officials begin to realize that these situations never should have been allowed to escalate to this level without someone taking steps to mitigate the potential for fiscal damages to our city?
I also read with great disgust Mr. Sodergren’s comments that he believed Allred and McFarland were victims of their own circumstances, and that Bosch’s claims should be dismissed. I am confused as to why Mr. Sodergren believes this to be the case, as he, being a practicing attorney, should know that harassment, discrimination and retaliation claims endorsed by the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Authority are substantiated in the significant majority of these cases.
Keep in mind, the facts of these claims must be submitted to FEHA prior to these employees being allowed to proceed with their legal filings, which tells me there must be some fact to the claims. It is my understanding that FEHA takes its responsibility very seriously, and very few frivolous cases get past its review.
So the next question I ask myself is: Why would these employees find it necessary to file suit against their employer, unless there is some validity to their claims?
The fact is, someone should have dealt with these matters before they reached this point.
This line of reasoning brings me to the city manager and the city attorney. It seems these two have failed to rectify these situations prior to litigation. The city manager, as the chief executive officer of the city, should be continually reading the landscape and should have an idea when his immediate staff and their seconds in command are experiencing difficulty with their peers and superiors — unless said city manager is not paying attention to what’s going on around him/her.
The city attorney should provide sound legal advice to the city manager and council by keeping them informed about potential litigation and how to address these liabilities before they reach this point.
This failure on the part of both the city manager and the city attorney tells me both have become derelict in their administrative, legal and fiduciary duties to the city of Tracy and the taxpaying citizens of Tracy.
If Mr. Churchill and Mr. Sodergren would have been looking out for the best interest of the city, the other employees and taxpaying citizens of Tracy, things would never have progressed to this point.
So I must ask, at what point are the mayor and council going to get to the bottom of these situations in order to effectively address them, so the city can get on with the business of recruiting business and new jobs to Tracy?
• Bill Williams has lived in Tracy since 1999. He is a retired lawyer and real estate investor.
she, ms olvera did same and then some to me and allowed her favorite employee courtney to do the same. she was new at the city only 3 months and i fresh from disability. from day one i was yelled at. she allowed a temp and another employee to berate me. she broke me in half and i still haven't recovered. i worked in under her and still not feeling strong she more or less killed me inside. i don't leave my house, i still have nightmares. she told and wrote lies about me. she hated me from day one. i had no one to turn to. i recieved from someone in HR an anomious letter telling me what she was doing and did was not right and gave me names of attorneys. but this person was too scared to come forward and back me up. i did noting because i had no one willing to step up and stand by my side. everyone was scared for thier jobs. i am sick inside as i write this as these feelings have never been resolved. i know i could sue her and win but i need a strong source by my side. i don't think i will ever be ok until i am able to resolve what she did to me.
Who cares?
At this point all of what you are saying is speculation and drama.
As you and I both know there are always two sides to every story. Unfortunately, in these cases it appears the plaintiff's sides all match but the defendants don't.
And after watching the Tuesday night council meeting I am almost certain the city manager, human resources director and the police chief are dirty. If not why would Mr. Helm have made a public claim that the city manager exonerated the police chief for lying. He appears to have the evidence to support his claim which means the city manager doesn't seem to have any problem lying either.
If that's the case then who's to say he (the city manager) is telling the truth about anything?
Of course, this is just speculation so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
I'm sure you're just kidding again, as I was just analyzing the statistics you (yourself) provided. Don't take it personally.
And it's anybody's guess, but statistically speaking, you (yourself) could actually spend more time leaning up against the walls when paying your business taxes. I generally just send my water bill in the mail.
"I think you're mistaken ... as I believe all three suits are proceeding."
The article you quoted says one of them is in negotiation.
If you read the article you quoted, it says a court date would only proceed if the negotiation broke down.
So where did you get your information?
(apparently theTP website balks at the less than sign I used in my last post so I made correction here)
That's easy. You gave the 30% number. When you described to us that the two of three claims were tossed.
The calculation of 0 to And so, if your number at 30% is correct the probability you gave is probably only .3
Most of these lawsuits will be tossed.
I think you're mistaken on your probabilities as I believe all three suits are proceeding. I would like to know where you came up with your calculations and statistics for the probabilities and the percentage of success you cited.
I would certainly hope you have some facts to support your comments.
I'm sure you are joking. And I don't know about Limbaugh as I don't listen to the radio. I simply added a dose of reallity to the article and pointed out that it was "dated".
The reality is these lawsuits have very little success rate as I pointed out. In this case there is less than a 30% success rate.
The probability of the lawsuit seeing the light of day lies somewhere between 0 and 1.
You can listen to Rush to determine the outcome of these court cases, but since he probably doesn't cover it - that would be about as effective as getting you news from chillbill's links.
In order to clear up any confusion here's a direct quote from the article you're citing:
"Already, Judge Lesley Holland has thrown out two of the lawsuit’s main claims.
You are correct, the judge did throw out two of the claims, but you should read on as the next few sentences confirm what chilibill said:
"The allegation of an unsafe and threatening workplace was tossed, because “none of the alleged comments in this case would cause any reasonable person to doubt his or her safety.”
That's the first one to be dismissed. Here's the second one;
"Holland also dismissed Bosch’s assertion that his constitutional rights were violated through coercion."
Now here's where Sodergren inserts "his" opinion:
"Sodergren said the other two claims — one for retaliation, the other for breach of contract — should be dismissed, too." “We believe that there’s no legal basis for either of those causes for action,” he (Sodergren) said.
That opinion's coming from a land use attorney who couldn't win a land use case (the Ellis suit). So I guess half of your story is correct, but you may want to do a little fact checking before you start telling stories.
The local paper said:
"Already, Judge Lesley Holland has thrown out two of the lawsuit’s main claims."
When will you update your links?
Your list somehow doesn't show that?
What happened? Is the link broken?
Any updates?
http://ccms.stocktoncourt.org/viaplayer/caseSearch.aspx