|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
d him that one of his primary tasks was to keep the Hispanic caucus "off back." Members of the Hispanic caucus were exerting pressure on Eastin to fund the CBO's. Cervantes soon discovered there was rampant fraud among the CBO's and implemented a fraud fighting system to combat it. Yet when Cervantes confronted Eastin appointee and deputy superintendent Gabe Cortina with documents revealing CBO fraud, Cortina threw them back at him and told Cervantes to "get the money out the door" and "pay these people," telling him frankly that neither he nor Eastin cared about fraud. When Cervantes refused to back down, it was Eastin who dismissed him.
Although this evidence did not directly implicate Lindberg, it was highly significant in showing that Eastin intentionally pursued a policy of callous indifference to CBO fraud, even if it meant firing or demoting those who got in the way. Together with evidence of retaliation against other whistle-blowing employees, the jury could infer that the series of adverse actions carried out against Lindberg were a direct result of a policy conceived by Eastin and implemented by subordinates, rather than a random series of unconnected events.
Eastin also points to her testimony that she barely knew who Lindberg was, and had no recollection of him confronting her about fraud, as conclusive evidence that she lacked a retaliatory motive. There are two major flaws in this argument: First, the jury, as the ultimate arbiters of credibility, could have disbelieved Eastin. After all, Lindberg testified that he confronted her at least twice face-to- face, including once on the street, and another time when she shook his hand and presented him with an award for 25 years of service to the department. Each time, she refused to respond to his charges of corruption and retaliation. The jury could infer not only that Eastin knew who Lindberg was, but that her refusal to reply evinced a culpable state of mind. Second, as we have indicated, a personal motive or grudge against Lindberg was not an indispensable element to Eastin's liability. As long as the evidence supported the conclusion that Eastin set in motion a policy of retaliation, the jury could find that she violated sections 1102.5 of the Labor Code and 8547.8 of the Government Code.
Such evidence existed here, including Eastin's firing of Cervantes and Zimmerman, both of whom opposed funding those CBO's that had been found bilking the ESL-Citizenship program; Cortina's statement that neither he nor Eastin cared about fraud; the harassment of Lindberg and Bartlett, both of whom had complained about fraud and were cooperating with federal investigators; the purloining of Lindberg's computer and destruction of his investigative files; the unusual purchase of a shredder that was used to destroy documents subpoenaed by federal prosecutors; and the bizarre refusal to consider Lindberg for a vacancy in the department for which he was exc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|