10-02-09 One Unnamed District Attorney Deputy Et Al V County of Los Angeles Et Al Complaint Against Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley
10-02-09 One Unnamed District Attorney Deputy Et Al V County of Los Angeles Et Al Complaint Against Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley
175518)
2 Monforton Law Offices, PLLC
32 Kelly Court
3 Bozeman, Montana 59718
4 Telephone: (406) 570-2949
Facsimile: (406) 586-3869
5 E-mail: [email protected]
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
ONE UNNAMED DEPUTY )
12 DISTRICT ATTORNEY; ) Case No.____________
13 ASSOCIATION OF DEPUTY )
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, a Los )
14 Angeles County Employee ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
15 Organization, ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
) DECLARATORY RELIEF
16
Plaintiffs, )
17 v. )
18 )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; )
19 STEVE COOLEY, individually )
20 and in his official capacity; ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
CURTIS HAZELL, individually )
21 and in his official capacity, JOHN )
22 SPILLANE, individually and in his )
official capacity; JOHN ZAJEC, )
23
individually and in his official )
24 capacity; JACQUELYN LACEY, )
25 individually and in her official )
capacity, and DOES 1 - 10 )
26 )
27 Defendants. )
)
28
1
1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2 1. This case arises from an anti-union policy implemented by Defendant
3 Steven Cooley, the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, and his senior officials.
4 They have called the president of the employees union representing deputy district
5 attorneys a “crook.” Worse, they have declared that prosecutors who join the union
6 are “ratifying dishonesty” and are “contaminated,” thereby justifying “disastrous”
7 career consequences for any such deputy.
8
9 2. Remarkably, Defendants admitted in sworn testimony that they retaliate
10 against prosecutors who join the union. As described in detail below, the victims of
11 Defendants’ discriminatory policy are some of the best and brightest prosecutors in
12 the District Attorney’s Office. Defendants’ discriminatory acts include transferring
13 senior union members to juvenile courts, assignments reserved for young,
14 inexperienced prosecutors. For more experienced prosecutors, such transfers amount
15 to a career death sentence. These assignments often involve substantial commutes
16 from prosecutors’ residences and are referred to by Defendants as “freeway therapy.”
17 Defendants are also retaliating against union-represented prosecutors by threatening to
18 reduce their health care benefits beginning in January 2010.
19
20 3. Defendants use District Attorney Investigators (i.e., law enforcement
21 officers working directly for Defendants) to harass and intimidate the union’s most
22 active members as well as their allies in the media, a practice harkening back to the
23 kind of 19th Century thuggery commonly employed against union organizers. On at
24 least one occasion, DA Investigators have attempted to manufacture evidence that a
25 heterosexual union board member engaged in homosexual conduct, a tactic they have
26 employed against targets in other cases.
27
28
2
1
2
3 4. Defendants’ retaliation against the union’s president has been especially
4 severe, involving numerous punitive transfers, an illegal suspension without pay and
5 inclusion of false allegations in his most recent performance evaluation.1
6
7 5. Plaintiffs seek to exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and
8 association to engage in union-related activities without being subjected to
9 Defendants’ policy of discrimination and intimidation.
10
11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28
13 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
14 United States Constitution; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), in that Plaintiffs seek
15 redress for deprivations made under color of state law of rights, privileges, and
16 immunities secured by the United States Constitution; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4),
17 in that Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
18 provides a cause of action for the protection of civil rights; under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)
19 for an award of attorneys fees; under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) to secure declaratory relief;
20 and under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 to secure preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
21
22
23
24 1
Punitive transfers, law enforcement harassment (including attempts to manufacture
25 evidence of homosexual conduct by heterosexual men), illegal suspensions, and false employee
allegations are also par for the course for other deputies who exercise their First Amendment rights
26 in ways Defendants find displeasing. See, e.g., First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 33, 59, 67-71, filed in
Eng v. County of Los Angeles, Steve Cooley, et al. (C.D. Cal. Case No. CV 05-2686). As detailed
27 below, Defendants sharply increased their reliance upon these practices after Plaintiff Association of
28 Deputy District Attorneys became a certified public employees union in March 2008.
3
1 7. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Central
2 District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the events giving rise to the
3 claims described in this Complaint occurred within Los Angeles County.
4
5 PARTIES
6 8. Plaintiff Association of Deputy District Attorneys (“ADDA”) is an
7 employee organization (i.e., public employees union) formed in accordance with Los
8 Angeles County’s Employee Relations Ordinance. The Los Angeles County
9 Employee Relations Commission, the County agency that oversees employee relations
10 between the County and its public employees unions, certified ADDA as the official
11 representative for Los Angeles County Employees Bargaining Unit 801 in March
12 2008. ADDA has approximately 300 deputy district attorneys as members and
13 Bargaining Unit 801 consists of deputy district attorneys in Grades I through IV.
14
15 9. The other Plaintiff is currently a deputy district attorney in the DA’s
16 Office and shall be referred to as the “Unnamed DDA.” 2 The Unnamed DDA is
17 eligible for ADDA membership but is not yet a member. He/she intends to join
18 ADDA as a dues-paying member and become active in the organization’s affairs once
19 there is an injunction preventing Defendants from discriminating against ADDA
20 members. The Unnamed DDA resides in Los Angeles County.
21
22 10. Defendant Los Angeles County is a municipal corporation and at all
23 times mentioned herein has been the employer of the Unnamed DDA. The remaining
24 individual defendants, sued here in both their personal and official capacities, were at
25 all relevant times mentioned herein employees and/or agents of Los Angeles County.
26
2
The Unnamed DDA is suing anonymously in accordance with Does I thru XXIII v.
27 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1069-1071 (9th Cir. 2000). He/she will soon file a motion
28 for leave to proceed by using a pseudonym.
4
1 11. Defendant Steve Cooley is, and at all times herein mentioned was, the
2 District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles. He was first elected to office in
3 November 2000. His office has approximately 1,000 deputy prosecutors. Defendant
4 Cooley resides in the County of Los Angeles.
5
6 12. Defendants Curtis Hazell, John Spillane, John Zajec, and Jacquelyn Lacey
7 have been at all times pertinent to this action top ranking officials in the
8 administration of Defendant Cooley. Each of these Defendants has authority over
9 promotions, demotions, transfers and discipline within the DA’s Office and each has
10 illegally discriminated against union members in matters pertaining to promotions,
11 transfers, and discipline. This policy of discrimination is described in detail below.
12
13 13. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times
14 herein, each of the fictitiously named defendants was an agent, employee or co-
15 conspirator of one or more of the named defendants, and was acting within the course
16 and scope of said agency or employment. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe and
17 thereon allege that each of the fictitiously-named defendants aided and assisted the
18 named Defendants in committing the wrongful acts alleged herein, and that Plaintiffs’
19 damages, as alleged herein, were proximately caused by such Defendants.
20
21 14. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants, and each
22 of them, conspired and agreed among themselves to do the acts complained of herein
23 and were, in doing such acts, acting pursuant to and in furtherance of said conspiracy,
24 and each Defendant sued herein is jointly and severally responsible and liable to
25 Plaintiffs for the damages alleged herein.
26
27 15. Defendants, and each of them, and/or their agents/employees knew or
28
5
1 should have known that each of the remaining co-Defendants, individually and
2 together in varying combinations, was engaging in the conduct alleged herein.
3
4 FACTS
5
6 1.
7 Admissions by Defendants Regarding Their Policy of
8 Discriminating Against ADDA Members
9
10 16. On March 24, 2008, Los Angeles County’s Employee Relations
11 Commission (“ERCOM”) certified ADDA as the employee organization recognized
12 to represent the deputy prosecutors of County Bargaining Unit 801. Prior to this date,
13 ADDA was an entity that served primarily as a vehicle for social events for deputy
14 prosecutors. After certification, ADDA became a full-fledged public employees union
15 with the same rights and responsibilities as any other County-recognized union.
16
17 17. Shortly after ADDA’s certification, ADDA Board Member Frank
18 Tavelman sent an email to Defendant Lacey requesting the DA’s office state, in
19 writing, that it remains neutral regarding union issues and that it would refrain from
20 taking punitive action against any prosecutor for exercising his or her right to join
21 ADDA. Defendant Lacey is a top Cooley Administration official and had served as
22 the ADDA’s liaison with the Administration.
23
24 18. Defendant Lacey told Tavelman that Defendants would not comply with
25 ADDA’s request. Rather than honor ADDA’s request to take a neutral position,
26 Defendants implemented an office-wide policy of discriminating against ADDA
27
28
6
1 members regarding promotions, demotions, and transfers. This policy shall
2 hereinafter be referred to as Defendants’ “Union Discrimination Policy.”
3
4 19. Shortly before October 17, 2008, Defendant Lacey met with Robert
5 Dver, a 24-year veteran prosecutor and, at that time, the Assistant Head Deputy of the
6 Training Division of the DA’s Office. The Training Division is responsible for
7 providing, inter alia, a one-month training seminar for all newly hired prosecutors,
8 followed by additional seminars during the first two years of new prosecutors’ careers.
9 During their early years in the office, newly-hired prosecutors often look to their
10 trainers as mentors and routinely seek advice from them not only relating to cases but
11 also to office policies, both written and unwritten.
12
13 20. Dver and Defendant Lacey were close friends prior to October 17, 2008.
14
15 21. When they met, Dver told Defendant Lacey that he wanted to join
16 ADDA’s Contract Negotiating Team, which was scheduled to begin negotiating with
17 Cooley’s management team later in the year. ADDA believed Dver would be a
18 significant asset to its team, as both ADDA’s leadership and Defendants regarded
19 Dver as highly ethical and one of the best prosecutors in the DA’s Office.
20
21 22. Dver told Defendant Lacey that he wanted to join ADDA’s Contract
22 Negotiating Team because he believed he could help achieve reasonable compromises
23 between ADDA and the Cooley Administration. Dver intended to tell Defendant
24 Cooley of his decision and sought advice from Defendant Lacey as to how best to
25 approach him. Dver was also friends with Defendant Cooley at that time - Cooley had
26 previously attended bar mitzvahs for Dver’s children - and thought he should speak to
27 Cooley face-to-face about his decision.
28
7
1
2 23. Defendant Lacey told Dver not to join ADDA’s negotiating team and
3 also told him not to even bring up the subject with Defendant Cooley. To do so, she
4 said, would be a “disaster” for Dver’s career.
5
6 24. Dver nevertheless met with Defendant Cooley on October 17, 2008 in
7 order to discuss his decision to join ADDA’s bargaining team.
8
9 25. Defendant Cooley reacted to Dver’s idea with disgust. He told Dver that
10 many of ADDA’s members supported unionization as a result of Dver doing so and
11 that ADDA had exploited Dver’s reputation to aid its organizational activities.
12
13 26. Defendant Cooley then slandered ADDA’s President, Steve Ipsen, by
14 referring to him as a “crook” and declared that the prosecutors who signed the union
15 cards leading to ADDA’s certification were “contaminated.”
16
17 27. Defendant Cooley had obtained a confidential list of ADDA members
18 who signed union cards when one of his subordinates, Peter Burke, unlawfully
19 obtained the list from ERCOM. Immediately upon obtaining the list, Burke published
20 it to unauthorized persons and attached it as an exhibit to a state court complaint he
21 filed the day before Dver met with Defendant Cooley.
22
23 28. Defendant Cooley instructed Dver to “undermine” ADDA since,
24 according to Cooley, Dver had been responsible for ADDA’s certification as a public
25
26
27
28
8
1 employees union. Defendant Cooley further instructed Dver to team up with Burke
2 and another deputy prosecutor, Tom Rubinson, in their efforts to undermine ADDA.3
3
4 29. Dver was shocked by Defendant Cooley’s anti-union animus and did not
5 agree to his demand to “undermine” ADDA.
6
7 30. After the meeting on October 17, 2008, Defendant Cooley transferred
8 Dver out of the Training Division. Defendant Cooley also demoted Dver from his
9 position as Assistant Head Deputy and stripped him of his supervisory tasks.
10
11 31. Dver never joined ADDA’s bargaining team. Plaintiffs are informed,
12 believe, and thereon allege that Defendants’ intimidation and harassment of Dver
13 caused him to decline ADDA’s offer to join its bargaining team.
14
15 32. On July 9, 2009, Defendant Lacey testified under oath at a hearing and
16 admitted that participation in ADDA, particularly its negotiating team, is detrimental
17 to a deputy prosecutor’s career.
18
19 33. In response to questions posed by ADDA President Ipsen, who was
20 representing himself at that hearing, Defendant Lacey elaborated upon Defendants’
21 Union Discrimination Policy and her reasons for dissuading Dver from joining
22 ADDA’s bargaining team:
23
24 Q …. Did you think it would be bad for [Dver’s] career if he
25
26
3
The day before the meeting between Dver and Defendant Cooley, Burke filed a lawsuit in
27 state court alleging irregularities in a recent ADDA election. This suit is now on appeal. Tom
28 Rubinson now sits on the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
9
1 was closely allied with the Union, meaning it would lessen his
2 chance of getting promoted to Grade Five by Steve Cooley?
3
4 A. No. In as much as if you were the President, --
5
6 Q. Okay.
7
8 A. -- Yeah, I did.
9
10 Q. And you believed that it would hurt his chances and hurt his
11 career if he did that while I was President?
12
13 A. I definitely thought being associated with you would hurt him.
14
15 Q. Or even with the Union while I was President?
16
17 A. While you were President.
18
19 Q. Would hurt him in the sense of hurt his career?
20
21 A. Yes.
22
23 Q. Why did you think that?
24
25 A. I thought that because Mr. Cooley felt that you were
26 dishonest and felt quite frankly that anybody associated
27 with you would be ratifying or endorsing that dishonesty.
28
10
1
2 34. Later in that same proceeding, Defendant Lacey admitted that “I felt that
3 it would be bad for [Dver] to be associated with the union with [Ipsen] at the
4 leadership.”
5
6 35. Defendants’ Union Discrimination Policy is commonly known among
7 deputy district attorneys throughout Los Angeles County.
8
9
10 2
11 Injuries Being Sustained by ADDA as a Result of Defendants’
12 Union Discrimination Policy
13
14 36. Defendants’ Union Discrimination Policy has deprived, and is continuing
15 to deprive, ADDA and its members of their constitutional rights to freedom of
16 association and freedom of speech in numerous ways.
17
18 37. For example, Defendants gave written notice to all deputy prosecutors
19 that, beginning in January 2010, the County will reduce the health care benefits of all
20 union-represented prosecutors in the DA’s Office.
21
22 38. Besides violating both federal and state law, Defendants’ threats to
23 reduce health care benefits starting in January 2010 have hindered ADDA’s ability to
24 recruit and retain members.
25
26 39. As detailed in the remainder of this Complaint, Defendants have also
27 subjected ADDA members to punitive transfers, illegal suspensions, and intimidation
28
11
1 by armed DA Investigators. They have called ADDA’s president a “crook” and
2 declared that all other members of ADDA have “ratif[ied] dishonesty” by joining the
3 union. These smears would damage the reputation of any attorney. They are
4 extraordinarily damaging to prosecutors, attorneys from whom the judicial system
5 rightly demands the highest ethics. More than simply insulting, the slandering of 300
6 ADDA prosecutors by the men and women who run the DA’s office has created a
7 moral stigma that, left undisturbed, will cause reasonable, non-member prosecutors to
8 think twice before joining ADDA.
9
10 40. In taking these actions, Defendants seek to chill ADDA’s constitutional
11 rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech by discouraging non-ADDA
12 prosecutors, including the Unnamed DDA, from joining the union. These actions are
13 unlawfully undermining ADDA’s representation of prosecutors in the DA’s office and
14 financially damaging ADDA by depriving it of dues-paying members who would join
15 the union but for Defendants’ illegal actions.
16
17 41. Defendants also seek to chill ADDA’s constitutional rights to freedom of
18 association and freedom of speech by punishing those ADDA members, such as Dver,
19 who desire to aid ADDA’s Contract Negotiating Team.
20
21 42. Another victim of this tactic is Hyatt Seligman, who is also member of
22 ADDA’s Contract Negotiating Team. During a bargaining session this spring,
23 Seligman questioned Defendants’ denials that punitive transfers occur in the DA’s
24 office. Defendants became so irate at having a deputy prosecutor dare to ask such a
25 question that, two days later, Seligman found himself on the receiving end of one of
26 those transfers.
27
28
12
1 43. Defendants’ illegal retaliation and threats of continued retaliation against
2 highly respected prosecutors such as Dver and Seligman have deprived ADDA of
3 valuable and persuasive persons to represent it in collective bargaining negotiations.
4 Additionally, Defendants’ retaliation against members of ADDA’s Contract
5 Negotiating Team in response to statements made in bargaining sessions has been
6 intended to chill the team’s ability to represent ADDA and its members. The removal
7 of Dver and Seligman from the Training Division has further injured ADDA by
8 depriving newly-hired prosecutors of pro-union mentors, thereby reducing the chances
9 that newly-hired prosecutors will make the mistake of “contaminating” themselves --
10 in the words of Steve Cooley -- by joining ADDA.
11
12 3.
13 Application of the Union Discrimination Policy to Individual ADDA Members
14
15 44. Defendants have applied their Union Discrimination Policy against
16 ADAA members, particularly members of ADDA’s Board of Directors, who have
17 actively sought to organize deputy district attorneys into a viable collective bargaining
18 organization. Examples of how Defendants apply their Policy are detailed below.
19
20
21 ADDA President Steve Ipsen’s Background:
22
23 45. DDA Steve Ipsen joined the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s
24 Office 1987. He has been ADDA’s President since February 2002 and also served on
25 the Board of Directors for the State Bar of California from 2002 to 2005. He is
26 currently a Grade IV deputy.
27
28
13
1 46. Until four months ago, Ipsen’s supervisors had routinely rated him
2 “Outstanding,” the highest rating a deputy district attorney can receive on his or her
3 performance evaluation (“PE”).
4
5 47. One of Ipsen’s “Outstanding” PE’s came in 1993 from his supervisor at
6 the San Fernando Branch of the DA’s Office. This supervisor observed the following
7 about Ipsen:
8
9 Mr. Ipsen continues to accept the most difficult and complicated cases.
10 He has achieved exceptional results in their prosecution. He is willing
11 to spend the time necessary to adequately prepare assigned cases. He
12 is diligent and hard working and thoroughly dedicated. He is well
13 liked by his peers and witnesses have confidence in his ability. He has
14 an enviable record of trial success. His legal reasoning and judgment
15 are sound. His greatest strength lies in the fact that jurors like him.
16 Mr. Ipsen remains an asset to this office and his skills will only
17 improve with additional experience.
18
19 The supervisor expressing these comments was Defendant Steve Cooley who, in
20 1993, was the Head Deputy of the San Fernando Branch.
21
22 48. Ipsen’s prior supervisor in San Fernando, Billy Webb, congratulated
23 Ipsen in Ipsen’s 1991 PE for developing what Webb described as a “unique video
24 process for presenting documentary evidence that generated accolades from judges,
25 attorneys and expert witnesses alike.” Webb concluded his 1991 PE by noting that
26 “[w]e have several top flight trial attorneys here in San Fernando. [Ipsen] is one of
27 the top two or three.”
28
14
1 49. After 1993, Ipsen moved to the Van Nuys Branch. Philip Wynn, Ipsen’s
2 supervisor in Van Nuys, stated the following in Ipsen’s 1996 PE:
3
4 Mr. Ipsen is an outstanding trial attorney. He has an ability to speak with
5 the jury rather than to them. He is very comfortable in the courtroom and
6 conveys sincerity, a belief in his cases, and a confidence which jurors are
7 drawn to. He has been assigned several other “specials” due to his trial
8 abilities. They include several murders and sex offense cases. Mr. Ipsen
9 has an excellent knowledge and understanding of the law. He reasons well
10 and has demonstrated judgment and common sense. His written work is
11 organized, cogent and professional.
12
13 50. Wynn further stated that “[o]utgoing, friendly and personable, Mr. Ipsen
14 is popular with fellow employees. He handles witnesses and victims with sensitivity
15 and concern. His personal appearance is professional and he makes a favorable
16 impression inside and outside the courtroom.”
17
18 51. Two years later, Wynn’s successor at the Van Nuys Branch wrote the
19 following in Ipsen’s 1998 PE.
20
21 Based on [Ipsen’s] outstanding trial skills, he has been selected to
22 try some of the most difficult cases this branch has to offer. When
23 particularly challenging cases arise, he is the first deputy this rater
24 checks to see if he is available.
25
26 52. After detailing Ipsen’s success with “two extremely difficult cases,” the
27 supervisor further stated in Ipsen’s 1998 PE that Ipsen’s “adaptability and eagerness to
28
15
1 do whatever is necessary that needs to be done makes him a pleasure to
2 supervise….Mr. Ipsen’s inventive trial strategies and work ethic are well-known in the
3 Van Nuys office. He is professional in his dealings with opposing counsel while
4 remaining a tenacious litigator. In summary, he is seen as a formidable opponent for
5 the best of defense attorneys.”
6
7 53. The above-cited comments came from Defendant John Spillane, who is
8 now Chief Deputy District Attorney, the second highest official in the DA’s Office.
9 After assuming his duties as Chief Deputy, Defendant Spillane actively enforced
10 Defendants’ Union Discrimination Policy.
11
12 54. Ipsen’s performance as a trial lawyer was so good that he was assigned to
13 the Crimes Against Police Officers (“CAPOS”) unit of the DA’s Office in 1999. As
14 its title suggests, CAPOS focuses exclusively on crimes against law enforcement
15 personnel, crimes that usually involve murders of officers. CAPOS is considered one
16 of the most prestigious units in the DA’s Office.
17
18 55. In Ipsen’s 2002 PE, the supervisor at CAPOS described Ipsen’s
19 performance as follows:
20
21 Mr. Ipsen is a highly effective advocate. His advocacy is also
22 tempered with ethics…Mr. Ipsen demonstrates initiative and good
23 attitude. Once he commences preparation for a case he dedicates a
24 total and complete effort. He works long hours to accomplish
25 whatever is needed for the case. Mr. Ipsen achieves outstanding
26 results with his methods….One of his greatest attributes as a trial
27 lawyer is his ability to creatively and effectively respond to
28
16
1 changing circumstances. Mr. Ipsen is well liked by his fellow
2 prosecutors and support staff. He enjoys an excellent reputation
3 with law enforcement. Steven J. Ipsen is an outstanding deputy
4 district attorney who has been a valuable asset to the . . . Crimes
5 Against Peace Officers Section.
6
7 56. The author of Ipsen’s 2002 PE, Defendant John Zajec, is now a Director
8 in the DA’s office, making him one of the highest-ranking officials in the Cooley
9 administration. Defendant Zajec has participated directly in the enforcement of
10 Defendants’ Union Discrimination Policy.
11
12 Defendants’ Acts of Retaliation Against ADDA President Ipsen for Union Activities
13
14 57. ADDA members elected Ipsen as their president in February 2002. Later
15 that year, Ipsen made clear his goal of expanding ADDA’s membership and using
16 ADDA as a vehicle to unionize deputy district attorneys.
17
18 58. Defendants then engaged in a series of retaliatory actions against Ipsen
19 that dramatically intensified after ADDA became a certified union in 2008.
20
21 59. After Ipsen assumed the presidency of ADDA in 2002, Defendants
22 removed Ipsen from CAPOS, stripped him of most of his trial duties and limited his
23 duties to filing criminal complaints. Defendants transferred Ipsen to the Complaints
24 Division in retaliation for his union activism.
25
26 60. Despite this punitive transfer, Ipsen continued meriting “Outstanding”
27 ratings from his supervisors while he was in the Complaints Division.
28
17
1 61. In June 2003, Ipsen and ADDA filed a complaint with the California
2 Commission on Judicial Performance alleging that some Los Angeles Superior Court
3 judges illegally ordered the release of several defendants, including one defendant
4 who committed a murder shortly after his release. Defendant Steve Cooley strongly
5 objected to the criticism Ipsen and other ADDA members leveled against these
6 judges.
7
8 62. Later in November 2003, Ipsen and other ADDA members published an
9 advertisement in the Los Angeles Daily Journal calling for the defeat of the judges in
10 the next election.
11
12 63. Defendants retaliated against Ipsen by again transferring him, this time to
13 the DA’s Antelope Valley Branch in Lancaster, approximately 70 miles north of
14 downtown Los Angeles. As there were no open assignments in Lancaster at that time,
15 Defendants facilitated Ipsen’s punitive transfer by simultaneously transferring another
16 Grade IV deputy out of Lancaster. This deputy had been performing well in
17 Lancaster, lived nearby, and did not want to be moved from his assignment.
18
19 64. Despite this retaliation, Ipsen continued his outstanding performance.
20 Kerry White, Ipsen’s supervisor in Lancaster, described a retrial in Ipsen’s 2007 PE
21 that Ipsen handled involving two co-defendants in a murder case. Another prosecutor
22 handled the first trial, resulting in a “not guilty” verdict for one of the defendants and
23 a hung jury (nine jurors voting “not guilty”) for the other defendant.
24
25 65. White had “seriously considered dismissing the case” but Ipsen “put
26 together a compelling memorandum demonstrating how there was sufficient evidence
27 to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.” According to White, “DDA Ipsen
28
18
1 worked long hours putting the case together,” and ultimately convinced a jury to
2 convict the remaining defendant. White noted that “there are probably very few
3 attorneys in the office that could have won that retrial. DDA Ipsen is clearly an
4 excellent trial attorney and has earned an outstanding rating for this evaluation
5 period.”
6
7 66. On March 24, 2008, Ipsen and his fellow ADDA members achieved their
8 long-sought goal of certification of ADDA by ERCOM as the employee organization
9 recognized to negotiate on behalf of deputy prosecutors.
10
11 67. Around May 2008, a recently hired prosecutor assigned to Antelope
12 Valley requested advice from ADDA regarding intimidation by her supervisor, John
13 Nantroup. Nantroup succeeded Kerry White as supervisor of Antelope Valley. He
14 had unsuccessfully campaigned against Ipsen for ADDA’s presidency in 2004 and,
15 unlike Ipsen, believed that ADDA should conform to the wishes of the Cooley
16 administration.
17
18 68. Nantroup’s intimidation of this newly hired prosecutor began when the
19 prosecutor learned that a deputy sheriff who was a witness in one of her cases had a
20 history of fabricating evidence against defendants. The prosecutor notified the Brady
21 Unit4 of the DA’s Office, which advised her to disclose this information to the
22 defendant’s attorney.
23
24 4
The “Brady Unit” derives its name from Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), a case in
25 which the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of due process compels
prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence in their possession to defendants. The Brady Unit
26 maintains records of allegations of misconduct by law enforcement officers that are subject to
Brady’s disclosure requirements. It also advises prosecutors throughout the County as to what
27 evidence falls within this disclosure requirement.
28
19
1 69. Nantroup yelled at the prosecutor upon learning of her contact with the
2 Brady Unit. He then ordered her not to disclose the exculpatory evidence to the
3 defendant and to never again contact the Brady Unit.
4
5 70. Fearing (correctly) that a failure to comply with Brady’s mandate can
6 expose a prosecutor to sanctions from the State Bar, the new-hired prosecutor
7 contacted ADDA Board Member Guy Shirley and requested assistance from the
8 union. Shirley began an investigation of the matter. Ipsen also participated
9 significantly in this investigation beginning in June 2008.
10
11 71. Defendants ultimately assigned to case to another prosecutor.5
12
13 72. Prior to the case being resolved, Defendants transferred Ipsen in July
14 2008, this time to the DA’s office in Inglewood where his supervisor was Deputy
15 District Attorney Shawn Randolph. This transfer was another punitive act by
16 Defendants and was made over Ipsen’s strong objections.
17
18 73. While Ipsen was assigned to Inglewood, Randolph prepared a PE for a
19 younger, Grade II prosecutor who was also assigned to Inglewood and rated her “Not
20 Competent.” This PE was inaccurate and omitted numerous positive aspects of this
21 prosecutor’s performance. Randolph’s evaluation resulted in the prosecutor’s
22 demotion from Grade II to Grade I.
23
24
25 5
The Los Angeles County DA’s Office has a practice of retaliating against prosecutors who
26 seek to comply with their constitutional duties under Brady when such compliance undermines the
integrity of law enforcement witnesses. See, e.g., Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 414-415
27 (2006) (describing allegations of retaliation by the DA’s office against deputy district attorney who
28 questioned the veracity of a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy).
20
1 74. In December 2008, Ipsen acted as a union steward for the demoted
2 prosecutor and met with Randolph to explain why the prosecutor should be re-
3 evaluated. Additionally, ADDA retained counsel on behalf of the prosecutor. As a
4 result of the efforts by Ipsen, ADDA, and the attorney hired by ADDA, the
5 prosecutor’s evaluation was changed from “Not Competent” to “Competent” and the
6 prosecutor being restored to Grade II status with recovery of all of her lost wages that
7 had resulted from her unlawful demotion.
8
9 75. On March 4, 2009, two armed DA Investigators hand delivered a letter to
10 Ipsen notifying him that Defendants had suspended him for two days without pay for
11 alleged misconduct during the meeting Ipsen had with Randolph in December 2008 in
12 which Ipsen acted as union steward.
13
14 76. The allegations Defendants made against Ipsen about his meeting with
15 Randolph were false. Defendants did not give Ipsen any opportunity to rebut the
16 allegations. Moreover, Ipsen acted in his capacity as a union steward during the
17 December 2008 meeting. Accordingly, Ipsen was not subject to employer discipline
18 for his actions during this meeting. Any objections Defendants had regarding Ipsen’s
19 actions as a union steward were required to be handled by filing complaints with
20 ERCOM, not “handled” by armed DA Investigators and illegal suspensions.
21
22 77. On May 28, 2009, Ipsen examined Robert Dver at an ERCOM
23 administrative proceeding. It was then that Dver testified publicly, for the first time,
24 about the Union Discrimination Policy that Cooley had revealed to Dver when the two
25
26
27
28
21
1 met in October 2008.6 Ipsen followed up on July 9, 2009 with an examination of
2 Defendant Lacey, at which she admitted to the existence of Defendants’ Policy.7
3
4 78. Less than a week after Lacey’s bombshell testimony, Defendants again
5 retaliated against Ipsen by presenting him with a “Needs Improvement” PE rating.
6 This rating was based on Randolph’s false allegations relating to Ipsen’s intervention
7 in December 2008 on behalf of the Grade II prosecutor that Randolph had falsely
8 maligned. It was also based upon misleading statements by Nantroup, Ipsen’s former
9 supervisor in Antelope Valley and the perpetrator of the Brady violation Ipsen and
10 ADDA had previously investigated.8
11
12 79. The “Needs Improvement” PE subjects Ipsen to possible demotion or
13 termination at anytime until October 31, 2009.
14
15 80. Defendants issued this PE two days before the beginning of ADDA’s
16 campaign to achieve agency shop.9 Defendants timed the disclosure of Ipsen’s false
17 PE to disrupt his ability to campaign for agency shop.
18
19 81. Ipsen is currently assigned to the Compton Branch. His supervisor in
20 Compton, Lance Wong, is a member of Defendant Cooley’s management negotiating
21 team, the counterpart of ADDA’s Contract Negotiating Team. Since Ipsen’s transfer
22
23
24 6
See supra, ¶¶ 24-30.
25 7
See supra, ¶ 32.
26 8
See supra, ¶ 69.
27 9
An agency shop election is one in which members of a County bargaining unit vote to
28 determine whether union dues shall become mandatory for all members of the unit.
22
1 to Compton, Wong has been manufacturing grounds that could be used by Defendants
2 to discipline, demote or terminate Ipsen.
3
4
5 Defendants’ Use of DA Investigators to Gag Media Coverage of ADDA
6
7 82. Defendants have used DA Investigators to intimidate and harass media
8 outlets that have associated with ADDA and President Ipsen.
9
10 83. One example is the Full Disclosure Network, a cable news program
11 managed by Leslie Dutton, an Emmy-award winning producer.
12
13 84. In late 2006 and early 2007, Dutton attempted to organize a law
14 enforcement training conference at the Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles entitled
15 “Gangs, Drugs and Immigration.”
16
17 85. In a letter dated March 14, 2007, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca
18 stated to Dutton that he was “pleased to be a co-sponsor” and further stated that “[i]t is
19 with great enthusiasm that I endorse this project and urge law enforcement personnel
20 to support and attend the conference.”
21
22 86. ADDA President Steve Ipsen sent a letter to Dutton on May 23, 2007,
23 stating that ADDA was proud to co-sponsor the conference with Sheriff Baca.
24
25 87. Shortly thereafter, Dutton e-mailed an announcement regarding the
26 conference to deputy prosecutors in the DA’s Office. This e-mail explained that the
27 sponsors of the conference included ADDA.
28
23
1 88. On July 5, 2007, two armed DA Investigators showed up unannounced at
2 Dutton’s office. The Investigators repeatedly demanded that Dutton tell them who
3 had given her the e-mail addresses for deputy district attorneys to whom Dutton had e-
4 mailed the conference announcement.
5
6 89. Dutton asked the Investigators why they insisted upon this information.
7 The Investigators responded that the DA Office’s computer system needed to be
8 protected from viruses.
9
10 90. When Dutton asked the Investigators if any of the e-mails she sent had
11 contained viruses, they admitted that none had.
12
13 91. Dutton asked if she had done anything illegal in sending the e-mails. The
14 DA Investigators admitted that nothing illegal had occurred, begging the question of
15 why two armed investigators arrived unannounced at Dutton’s office in the first place.
16
17 92. Two weeks after DA Investigators interrogated Dutton, the Los Angeles
18 Sheriff’s Department withdrew its support for the conference. Dutton was forced to
19 cancel it.
20
21 93. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that Defendants
22 pressured the Sheriff’s Department to withdraw its support from Dutton’s conference
23 due to ADDA’s participation in it.10
24
25 10
This is not the first time Defendants have used DA Investigators to bully small media outlets.
26 In May 2002, after obtaining an illegal search warrant, Defendants ordered DA Investigators to raid
the Los Angeles offices of the Metropolitan News. Their behavior prompted a Los Angeles Times
27 editorial comparing the DA Investigators who conducted the raid to “thugs” and “vandals.” See The
28 D.A.’s Press Attack, Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2002.
24
1 ADDA Vice President Marc Debbaudt’s Background:
2
3 94. DDA Marc Debbaudt is Vice President of ADDA and has been since
4 2002. He currently sits on ADDA’s Labor Committee, Litigation Committee,
5 ERCOM committee, and Contract Negotiating Team.
6
7 95. In Debbaudt’s 2009 PE, his supervisor described Debbaudt as “the best
8 calendar deputy I have ever seen in the office.”
9
10 96. Debbaudt’s prior supervisors have heaped similar praises on him. In
11 January 2005, Debbaudt’s supervisor in the San Fernando Branch, Beverly Campbell,
12 made these comments in Debbaudt’s PE that year:
13
14 Marc is an excellent calendar deputy and is highly regarded by his
15 peers and subordinates as well as the defense bar and bench. He has
16 won the trust and admiration of his judge as well as the public
17 defenders assigned to his court. Marc is an excellent mentor and
18 counselor. He has done an outstanding job in maintaining a
19 professional atmosphere in his court. The public defenders feel
20 confident that perceived grievances are handled appropriately. Mr.
21
Debbaudt has outstanding interpersonal skills and is extremely
22
approachable. As a result, he routinely solves problems before they
23
become of crisis proportion. He performs well in new situations and
24
does so with a minimum of instructions. However, he seeks
25
guidance when appropriate and communicates potential problems to
26
his supervisors. Judge Taylor is effusive in praising him not only for
27
his calendar management but also for his ability to get along with
28
25
1 everyone in the courthouse. Mr. Debbaudt’s legal knowledge, legal
2 reasoning, judgment, and oral and written presentations are
3 excellent. Marc is a team player who willingly tries cases as well as
4 runs a calendar. His calendar management is excellent. He always
5 knows his cases and is well prepared on both the facts and the law.
6
7
Mr. Debbaudt is sensitive to the needs of victims and witnesses. He
8
is well liked and has a delightful sense of humor. He can always be
9
depended upon to handle sensitive situations in an appropriate
10
manner. He is a credit to the office and a pleasure to supervise.
11
12
97. Campbell’s successor at the San Fernando Branch, Michael Grosbard,
13
wrote an equally glowing PE in December 2006 regarding Debbaudt’s work:
14
15
[Debbaudt] possesses a unique combination of intelligence,
16
experience, and common sense that result in excellent judgment. His
17
legal knowledge is extensive and his ability to engage in legal
18
19 reasoning is unparalleled. Mr. Debbaudt’s calendar is always