The lawsuit alleging harassment in the District Attorney’s
Office ended with a settlement Thursday that will give the two
women making the complaint $35,000 and require District Attorney
John Sarsfield and his office staff to attend harassment and
discrimination classes.
Hollister – The lawsuit alleging harassment in the District Attorney’s Office ended with a settlement Thursday that will give the two women making the complaint $35,000 and require District Attorney John Sarsfield and his office staff to attend harassment and discrimination classes.
The suit was filed in August of last year by Victim Witness Department employees Katie Fancher and Julie Roybal. They alleged Sarsfield was having an affair with his office manager that created a hostile work environment, and that he behaved in an “openly rude and contemptuous manner” toward women in the office. The county hired a law firm to investigate the matter. The investigation identified a number of personnel issues that needed to be addressed in the office, according to the county’s attorney, Rick Bolanos.
“We are very pleased with the settlement and Mr. Sarsfield considers it a victory for him,” said his attorney Jon Giffen. “He feels strongly that he would have prevailed at trial but the cost to taxpayers in the county would have amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to the end to vindicate himself. He felt it was the most responsible thing to do.”
Originally, county officials and Giffen confirmed, a deal had been offered that required only Sarsfield to take management training classes – originally titled sensitivity classes. Now, both Fancher and Roybal, who will use the $35,000 to pay their attorney, Bill Marder, will also be required to take discrimination and harassment classes, according to Giffen.
Sarsfield directed all comments to Giffen Thursday, and Marder declined to comment because he hasn’t received confirmation of the agreement in writing, he said. Marder said once he receives confirmation a confidentiality clause on the settlement is lifted, he and his clients will be willing to comment.
Supervisor Anthony Botelho also signed the settlement Thursday and was very pleased to have the ordeal over and done with, he said. He said everyone involved was very cooperative, and although a deal was offered in December, it took a while for all three sides to work out the details and come to an agreement, he said.
“I have a sense there’s a level of cooperation between the DA’s office and the board, and that we can work on other issues that are more pressing,” he said.
Supervisor Don Marcus echoed Botelho’s sentiments.
The county has not made the results of its investigation into the District Attorney’s Office public. Members of the Board of Supervisors have said they most likely won’t take any action on the report, and Bolanos said the report is a confidential personnel record and will not be made public unless a judge orders it to be.
However, lawyer Mike Pekin has filed a court motion Monday to get the report that he believes confirms the affair allegations he made in May, during the height of District 5 election controversy. Pekin believes that allegation is the reason Sarsfield recently initiated a Grand Jury investigation into him.
Sarsfield initiated a Grand Jury probe into the controversial lawyer in December for allegations of extortion, perjury and conspiracy related to a corruption lawsuit Pekin filed against the county. Sarsfield has declined to comment on the Grand Jury investigation and directed all questions to Special Deputy District Attorney John Picone, who has also declined to comment because he said all Grand Jury proceedings are confidential.
In May, Pekin filed a motion alleging Sarsfield was having an affair as an attempt to disqualify the district attorney from conducting a Grand Jury investigation into Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz and his campaign adviser Ignacio Velazquez for allegations of election violations. Pekin said Sarsfield’s alleged relationship with his office manager, who was the niece of one of former Supervisor Bob Cruz’s supporters, created a bias. De La Cruz beat Cruz by only 10 votes in the March race, and the issue became one of the most hotly contested political matters of the year.
Pekin wants to take the report before the Grand Jury to show them he was only attempting to defend his clients.
“Sarsfield is playing the entire Grand Jury and his case against me on the fact that he did not have an affair with his office manager,” Pekin said. “I think if the investigation by the county had shown (there was no affair) then the report would have told the county to defend the case and Sarsfield wouldn’t have had to settle. But the investigation was concluded and Sarsfield is being compelled to settle, whether he likes it or not.”
Sarsfield said he hasn’t seen Pekin’s motion yet, but that he doesn’t give anything the lawyer files much weight.
“It’s just more of Mr. Pekin’s wacky motions,” he said.
A court hearing to determine whether Pekin will get his wish will be held on Feb. 15 at 10am.
Erin Musgrave covers public safety for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or [email protected]
