Page 1
Court of Appeal:
$5 Million Judgment in Case of Fired Firefighter Stands
Plaintiff Contended Chief’s Conduct in Discharging Him on the Spot Violated Substantive Due Process
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Third District Court of Appeal yesterday upheld a judgment in an action based on the firing of a fireman without an opportunity to be heard which, with an award of attorney fees included, amounts to more than $5 million.
A theory put forth by the plaintiff was that the disregard of his rights was so arbitrary as to shock the conscience, thus constituting a violation of substantive due process.
Justice Jonathan K. Renner wrote the opinion, which was not certified for publication. It affirms a judgment in favor of Timothy O’Hara against Liberty Rural County Fire Protection District in San Joaquin County and the district’s fire chief for 44 years, Stanley D. Seifert, who allegedly ran the fire department as his personal fiefdom.
Serving Chili
Friction between Seifert and O’Hara began in 2012 after O’Hara acceded to a request by Seifert’s granddaughter to serve chili at her graduation party. That prompted the chief to summon O’Hara, an employee of the department for 12 years, to his office, telling him: “Just because you did a nice thing doesn’t mean you get a free pass around here” and warning:
“Don’t get comfortable.”
Acrimony culminated in Seifert telling the firefighter in 2018 that he could either quit or be fired, Seifert declaring he wasn’t quitting, and Seifert telling him he was fired, handing him a letter saying so. The termination did not comply with procedures set forth in the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“FPBOR”), contained in Government Code §3250 et seq.
Sec. 1983 Suit
O’Hara sued 42 U.S.C. §1983 based on actions by persons acting under color of state law in contravention of federal constitutional precepts. He relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in County of Sacramento v. Lewis which says that substantive due process is violated by “arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience.”
A jury awarded O’Hara $3,107,507 in economic and noneconomic damages; San Joaquin Superior Court Judge Erin Castillo tacked on a tax gross-up award of $1,301,457 and added $25,000 as a civil penalty under the FPBOR, adding up to $4,433,964. Castillo’s award of $594,630 in attorney fees brought the total to $5,028,594.
In his opinion affirming the judgment, Renner pointed out that a violation of substantive due process can take the form of intruding on a fundamental right or the commission of conduct so oppressive as to shock the conscience.
Incorrect Focus
He wrote:
“Seifert and the District focus on the ‘fundamental rights’ strand of substantive due process….They argue public employees do not have a fundamental right to continued employment, and therefore, O’Hara cannot establish a section 1983 cause of action based on substantive due process as a matter of law. This argument is a strawman.”
Renner explained:
“But O’Hara has never argued he has a substantive due process right to continued employment with the District. He has instead relied on the ‘shocks the conscience’ strand of substantive due process.”
The justice declared:
“Seifert and the District have failed to show the evidence compels findings in their favor on substantive due process as a matter of law.”
The case is O’Hara v. Liberty Rural County Fire Protection District, C096135.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company