Sacramento, California – In a significant legal resolution, Tamara Evans, a former employee at the California agency responsible for certifying police officers, has been awarded over $8.7 million by a federal court jury. Evans claimed that she was dismissed from her job in retaliation for highlighting questionable practices in a state contract.
Evans noticed irregularities with a San Diego contractor’s expense reports filed with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). She observed discrepancies, such as reports of full classes that were actually not full, charges for unutilized meeting spaces, and inconsistencies in the number of instructors billed versus those actually teaching.
Upon raising her concerns in 2010 to auditors at the California Emergency Management Agency, Evans faced a significant shift in her workplace environment. Previously lauded for her excellent performance, Evans suddenly received negative evaluations and was denied family medical leave, actions she interpreted as retaliatory.
The situation escalated, and in 2013, Evans was terminated from her position. She firmly believed her dismissal was a direct result of her whistleblowing actions. Although the State Personnel Board initially dismissed her retaliation claim in 2014, stating that her termination was justified, the federal jury’s decision contradicts that finding, siding with Evans in her lawsuit.
Evans’ legal battle highlighted ongoing issues within the agency regarding the misuse of state and federal funds. According to her trial attorney, Lawrance Bohm, the problematic practices Evans initially identified remain unaddressed, raising concerns about the oversight of public funds. Bohm pointed out that while the lawsuit focused on federal money for strategic reasons, similar issues persist with state funds.
Katie Strickland, a spokesperson for POST, countered the allegations, asserting that the agency has no knowledge of such claims regarding misused state funds. Strickland emphasized that POST stands by its decision on Evans’ termination, maintaining that it was both justified and unrelated to her whistleblowing.
In discussions surrounding the expenses for the training programs, Bohm criticized the locations chosen for training, pointing out they often coincide with popular tourist destinations, suggesting the program expenses might not be strictly for training purposes. This, he argued, might indicate a misuse of state resources, which deserves scrutiny comparable to that of federal funds.
The case sheds light on the challenges whistleblowers face in sectors funded by taxpayer money, sparking a conversation about the accountability of governmental agencies and the proper management of funds. As POST considers its next steps post-verdict, including potential appeals, the implications of this case continue to resonate beyond the courtroom. This situation highlights a broader need for systematic changes to ensure transparency and integrity in the management of public resources.