District Attorney John Sarsfield
”
openly engaged in a romantic relationship with his office
manager,
”
but retaliated against four employees in his office because he
perceived them as a
”
threat to his administration,
”
according to an investigative report stemming from a harassment
lawsuit filed by two women in his office.
Hollister – District Attorney John Sarsfield “openly engaged in a romantic relationship with his office manager,” but retaliated against four employees in his office because he perceived them as a “threat to his administration,” according to an investigative report stemming from a harassment lawsuit filed by two women in his office.
The report, a confidential pre-mediation brief for the county, also states that a county investigator sustained that Sarsfield behaved “in an openly rude and contemptuous manner toward female personnel,” in his office.
The report obtained by the Free Lance was commissioned by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors last summer after Victim Witness Department employees Katie Fancher and Julie Roybal filed a complaint with the county alleging sexual harassment. A summary of the report, which was part of the mediation process to settle the suit, was presented to board members during a closed session meeting last October, according to two board members. Fancher, Roybal and their attorney, Bill Marder, eventually settled the suit with Sarsfield and the county last month for $35,000 and several other conditions.
However, the investigative report concluded that while evidence suggested Sarsfield had an affair with his current office manager, Nancy Leon, his “adverse” treatment of Fancher, Roybal, Deputy District Attorney Candice Hooper, who ran against Sarsfield in 2002 and lost, and investigator Pat Stevens was “politically motivated.”
The report stated that while the findings were “troubling in that they identify serious personnel problems, a dysfunctional workplace and questionable management practices,” they did not establish liability for sexual harassment or gender discrimination.
Outside investigator Renee Mayne, on behalf of the county’s San Francisco law firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, concluded Sarsfield perceived the four employees as threats to his administration because they were aligned with former District Attorney Harry Damkar’s administration, according to the report.
“The primary motivation for Mr. Sarsfield’s conduct in taking adverse employment action against Katie Fancher, Julie Roybal, Candice Hooper, and Pat Stevens, and reducing the effectiveness of the Victim-Witness Program was his belief that these employees from the previous, allegedly corrupt administration needed to be removed from influence in the District Attorney’s office,” Mayne wrote in the report. “Mr. Sarsfield took adverse action against the four employees he saw as a threat to him or his office … He did not take adverse action against any other employee in the office.”
Sarsfield declined to comment because he said all aspects of the mediation process, which include the report, are confidential.
“I’ve never seen it. You need to talk to my lawyer,” Sarsfield said. “Whoever gave it to you, I guarantee, is going to get a lawsuit.”
Fancher and Roybal’s complaint outlined a number of allegations, and, according to the report, Mayne’s investigation sustained that:
n “Sarsfield openly engaged in a romantic relationship with subordinate Nancy Leon, leaving the office for long periods during the day, spending long periods together behind closed office doors and were routinely seen outside the office together.”
n Sarsfield demoted “Deputy District Attorney Candice Hooper from handling felonies to misdemeanors.”
n Sarsfield forced “Hooper to report to Denny Wei, a male attorney with substantially less experience, when Sarsfield is out of the office.”
n Sarsfield behaved “in an openly rude and contemptuous manner toward female personnel, including refusing to acknowledge them as he walked past them in the halls.”
Former District Attorney Harry Damkar, who held office for 20 years before Sarsfield, said Sarsfield’s retaliation toward the four employees was because of a continuing political vendetta against anyone who didn’t support him for district attorney.
Damkar said Sarsfield never complained to him personally about alleged corruption within his office, and that he takes offense to the allegation because he attempted to maintain a sense of credibility within his office. Soon after taking office, Sarsfield announced he was planning on re-examining as many as 60 felony convictions dating back to 1984 because he felt evidence may have been suppressed by members of Damkar’s staff in those cases.
“The office of district attorney is a matter of public trust. I think he’s breached the public trust and there’s no perception of fairness in that office,” Damkar said. “I believe he is unable to do his job and he should resign for the good of the office, his family and the good of the community.”
Since the women filed their complaint, the county has spent approximately $160,000 on the discrimination issue alone, according to a county source.
Sarsfield’s attorney, Jon Giffen, who adamantly denied the affair allegations in the past, said the investigator’s determination that there was evidence to suggest an affair was flat wrong. He wouldn’t comment on Mayne’s conclusion that Sarsfield’s retaliation was politically motivated because he said he also hasn’t seen the report.
“Apparently (the findings) were not so serious that Mr. Marder was willing to settle the lawsuit for virtually nothing,” Giffen said. “That’s all past history anyway. Mr. Sarsfield’s office is running very effectively. Whatever problems have been dealt with and he will go forward with a clean slate.”
Giffen said the county’s law firm, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, refused to give him or Sarsfield a copy of the investigation. He said he thought he probably had asked to see it, but one of the county’s outside attorney’s declined to give it to him. Giffen said he couldn’t recall which attorney denied his request.
The county’s attorney with the firm, Rick Bolanos, did not return phone calls Wednesday.
Marder, who had seen the report, said it clearly vindicates the two women and that they were never interested in money. The women directed comments to Marder.
“Katie and Julie really got treated terribly, and it was even worse that they had to listen to a lot of lies through Sarsfield and his attorneys,” Marder said. “But in the end the truth came out.”
Supervisors Reb Monaco and Don Marcus both declined to comment. Marcus said he hadn’t seen a copy of the report. Supervisor Anthony Botelho also hadn’t seen a copy of it, and didn’t feel comfortable commenting on something he believes should remain confidential.
“I just want to move forward and do what’s right for the community,” Botelho said. “As far as I’m concerned the whole issue is behind us and I want to keep it that way.”
Allegations from Fancher and Roybal’s complaint that were sustained:
Sarsfield openly engaged in a romantic relationship with subordinate Nancy Leon, leaving the office for long periods during the day, spending long periods together behind closed office doors and were routinely seen outside the office together
Sarsfield prepared an organization chart identifying Leon as the supervisor of Victim-Witness when historically this had not been the case
Sarsfield took away the offices of Fancher an Roybal even though offices are necessary for their job due to the very sensitive nature of working with victims of serious crimes
Sarsfield initiated disciplinary action against Fancher, including preparing a letter of reprimand (dated April 16, 2004) for pretextual reasons
Demoted Deputy District Attorney Candice Hooper from handling felonies to misdemeanors
Forced Hooper to report to Denny Wei, a male attorney with substantially less experience, when Sarsfield is out of the office
Initiated discipline against Hooper
Promoted Wei to Deputy District Attorney III even though he had very little experience and was openly contemptuous of female personnel such as Fancher and Roybal
Behaved in an openly rude and contemptuous manner towards female personnel, including refusing to acknowledge them as he walked past them in the halls
Took away the stationary and telephone lines of Victim-Witness because it was a program supervised by Fancher
Allegations from Fancher and Roybal’s complaint that were not sustained:
Allowed Leon to work substantially less than a 40-hour week
Created the impression that Leon had complete control of the office
Invited Leon to social events such as his swearing in ceremony while excluding all other female employees
Excluded women from office and social functions – the only two people invited to the swearing in ceremony were Stephen Wagner, a male, and Leon, the woman with whom he was having an affair
Allegations from Fancher and Roybal’s complaint that were unfounded:
Allowed Leon to transfer her job duties to other employees because as Ms. Leon told Roybal, “John needs me to be available to him 24/7”
Source: The pre-mediation brief commissioned by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, from an investigation conducted by the San Francisco law firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
