Sacto 9-1-1

From Stan Oklobdzija:

The Citrus Heights Police Department has filed a response to three former officers who allege they were fired because they are lesbians, using an interpretation of a 1992 law to challenge the claim.

Tamara Warner, Tasha Thompson and Jo Moya sued the department in July, claiming discrimination and disparate treatment on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The women - two former sergeants and a K-9 officer - also alleged that they were subject to "constant denigrating gossip, jokes and other unwelcome offensive behavior."

On Sept. 2, the department filed a motion for dismissal of the case on the basis that the women's lawsuit violated the department's right to conduct official business under a 1992 state statute.

The Police Department's attorney said that the complaint filed by the three former officers interfered with the department's ability to conduct an "official proceeding authorized by law," and thus constituted a Strategic Limitations Against Public Participation - or SLAPP - lawsuit, according to the motion.

Suzanne Solomon, the lawyer, said the fact that the Citrus Heights Police Department had to investigate claims that the officers were acting improperly makes the department eligible for anti-SLAPP protection.

"If there's a complaint that a police officer is engaged in misconduct, the Police Department is required to investigate," Solomon said. "When public agencies are required to do what they do by law, they shouldn't be subject to nuisance lawsuits."

Solomon also said the claim that the officers were terminated from the department because of their sexual orientation was ludicrous. All three officers were praised and promoted by the department in prior evaluations, she said.

"I've litigated lots of discrimination lawsuits, that's not the fact pattern," she said. "If you don't like someone because they're in a protected category, it's just obvious."

The idea of using the anti-SLAPP protection against a discrimination lawsuit is troubling to attorney Mark Goldowitz, who was one of the original advocates of the 1992 statute.

"I'm not aware of the anti-SLAPP statute used in this way before," he said. "This is not the type of case that the law was enacted to protect against."

Goldowitz said that while the literal law includes "official government proceedings" as protected against malicious lawsuits, he said the intent of the statute was geared toward protecting free speech and the right to petition.

"If a private employer was sued for the same thing, they could not sue," he said. "Does it make sense to give this role to a government agency when it's acting in its role as an employer?"