SAN DIEGO — A jury has ruled that a former high-ranking prosecutor from Orange County was compelled to retire due to harassment by District Attorney Todd Spitzer and his assistant, Shawn Nelson, who now serves as a Superior Court judge. The decision follows a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Tracy Miller, who claimed her 25 years of service were marred by retaliation related to her efforts to protect younger colleagues from harassment.
The jury awarded Miller $3 million in economic damages and $25,000 in punitive damages against Spitzer, but did not find Nelson acted with malice. Moreover, the jury concluded that the county failed in its duty to prevent the harassment.
Miller’s attorney, Bijan Darvish, had sought punitive damages of $330,000, representing roughly 10% of Spitzer’s salary over the last eight years, which Miller contended represented the time he compromised her career. The county’s legal costs in the case are estimated to be around $1 million.
After the verdict, Spitzer testified that he was not well-versed in the family’s finances, stating that his wife manages their finances. He expressed that any punitive damage award would significantly impact their life’s trajectory, indicating that he might have to extend his career and reconsider his daughter’s university plans.
As he approaches his 65th birthday, Spitzer suggested he might retire after his current term, which has two years remaining, hinting that he may not seek re-election. He expressed concern that the verdict would have lasting ramifications on his professional future.
Darvish urged jurors to consider punitive damages as a means to deter similar misconduct in the future. Meanwhile, county attorney Tracey Kennedy asserted that the verdict itself already served as a strong message against Spitzer’s actions and would have ramifications on his political career.
The case moved to San Diego due to Spitzer’s standing as Orange County’s top prosecutor and Nelson’s judicial position. Key witnesses included Judge Chris Duff and evidence related to Judge Ebrahim Baytieh.
Miller had reached an executive level in her role as a senior assistant district attorney for three years before retiring. Her lawsuit claims Spitzer and Nelson fostered a hostile work environment after she acted to protect younger colleagues who reported harassment by another prosecutor, Gary LoGalbo, who was a personal friend of Spitzer.
Closing arguments highlighted the alleged harassment, including instances where Miller was belittled and not allowed to speak during executive meetings. Testimonies indicated a pattern of undermining comments and actions designed to intimidate women in the workplace.
During the trial, it was revealed that Nelson had accused Miller of lying about her allegations. Darvish pointed to evidence suggesting a broader culture of misogyny, with women referred to as “babysitters” for junior prosecutors. Another prosecutor testified that derogatory comments were made about women in leadership roles, reinforcing Miller’s claims of a hostile atmosphere.
Kennedy countered these assertions, arguing that Miller was an “at will” employee and that she had been promoted rather than retaliated against. She also claimed that there was insufficient evidence to support assertions that Miller had been targeted for her advocacy on behalf of her colleagues.
In response, Miller and her legal team maintained their stance that there was no remorse expressed by Spitzer and Nelson, emphasizing the overall impact of their actions on Miller’s career and well-being.
Spitzer, in a statement following the trial, referenced a chaotic environment upon taking office and acknowledged his frustration with Miller’s performance. He expressed regret over any misinterpretation of his actions, claiming they were intended to enhance transparency and ethics in the district attorney’s office.
The jury’s decision marks a significant moment for workplace accountability and the prevalence of harassment issues in public offices. While the ruling has been framed as a step toward justice for Miller and other victims of workplace misconduct, it remains to be seen how it will affect Spitzer’s future and the operations within Orange County’s District Attorney’s office.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.