Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Emotional Safety Relevant to Workplace Protective Order
Former City of Arcata Mayor Restrained From Contacting City Employees
By Kimber Cooley, Staff Writer
|
|
|
Appearing above is a 2022 campaign ad in Brett Watson’s unsuccessful bid for reelection to the City Council in Arcata, Calif. A workplace restraining order imposed on Watson was upheld Tuesday by the First District Court of Appeal. |
Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal has held that a judge may consider emotional and psychological safety in determining whether a credible threat of violence was made against an employee for purposes of a statute authorizing an employer to seek a restraining order against the person making the threats.
The question arose in a case where the City of Arcata, located in Humboldt County, sought a restraining order against its former mayor and City Council member based on obsessive and harassing behavior toward the city manager.
Justice Monique Langhorne Wilson wrote the unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday, affirming a judgment by Humboldt Superior Court Judge Timothy Canning ranting the protective order. Presiding Justice Jim Humes and Justice Kathleen M. Banke joined in the opinion.
Harassing Behavior
Appealing the issuance of the restraining order was Brett Watson, who was appointed as a City Council member in April 2017 and was elected mayor, by vote of the council, in December 2018.
Shortly after his election, Watson expressed strong romantic feelings for City Manager Karen Diemer, who announced in January 2024 her intent to retire. Over the course of the next two years, he would frequently visit her office, text her, and ask her to go for walks during which he would declare his devotion.
Diemer said she felt that she could not reject his invitations for walks because he was her boss and complied out of a concern that his visits to her office were making the staff uncomfortable. When she asked him to take a 30-day break from contact, he threatened her job and said he would become “cold-blooded” and report “everything [she was] doing wrong all the time.”
At other times he would beg for contact and say he would do horrible things to himself if they stopped talking.
Sexual Harassment Report
Diemer reported Watson for sexual harassment and workplace violence in 2021, and the city opened an independent investigation into her allegations. Watson did not deny the allegations and voluntarily resigned as mayor on Oct. 11, 2021.
On Oct. 20, 2021, the City Council voted to remove him as mayor and issued a no-confidence vote as to his ability to serve as a member.
After his removal, Watson showed up multiple times at the city manager’s suite, using Diemer’s access code to gain entry. He also appeared at a May 2022 council meeting, called for the purpose of discussing the independent report sustaining Diemer’s allegations, where he blamed Diemer for his conduct.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council authorized outside counsel to seek a restraining order.
On March 17, 2023, Canning issued a three-year permanent restraining order against Watson, prohibiting him from entering City Hall or contacting Diemer, City Council member Stacy Atkins-Salazar, then-City Attorney Nancy Diamond, or then-Assistant City Manager Danette Damello.
Workplace Restraining Order
Penal Code §527.8(a) provides:
“Any employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee and, at the discretion of the court, any number of other employees at the workplace, and, if appropriate, other employees at other workplaces of the employer.”
Subsection (b)(2) defines “credible threat of violence” in part as “a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety.”
“Unlawful violence” is defined in subsection (7) as “any assault or battery, or stalking as prohibited in Section 646.9 of the Penal Code,” excluding acts of self-defense or defense of others.
Watson contended on appeal that Canning’s order improperly broadened the definition of “safety” to include emotional and psychological security, without a statutory basis for doing so.
Emotional Security
Langhorne Wilson noted that “[s]talking, as relevant here, is defined as willfully and maliciously harassing another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for their safety.”
Sec. 646.9 defines “credible threat” in part as “a verbal or written threat… or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct… made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety… and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat.”
The jurist pointed out that neither §527.8 nor §646.9 define “safety” and turned to the 2000 Fifth District Court of Appeal decision in People v. Borrelli, which held, in an opinion authored by then-Presiding Justice James Ardaiz (now retired), that “safety” includes emotional and psychological security for purposes of interpreting §646.9.
Langhorne Wilson found this definition applicable to the present case and wrote:
“[S]ection 527.8’s definition of credible threat of violence uses the term safety in a similar manner to Penal Code section 646.9….A broad definition of safety is supported by the case law interpreting Penal Code section 646.9 and the use of similar language in section 527.8. Thus, we find no error in the trial court’s definition of safety to include emotional and psychological safety.”
Substantial Evidence
She examined the record and said that “we find substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Watson’s stalking behavior justified the permanent restraining order.”
The justice remarked:
“Over the course of two years, Watson repeatedly harassed K.D. He used his position as mayor to manipulate her to give more of her time to him, particularly outside of work hours; he would get upset when she didn’t respond to his text messages; he would show up at her office unannounced and ask for hugs that became too long and creepy; and K.D. felt she could not say no to his requests.”
She continued:
“Watson threatened K.D.’s job whenever she tried to establish boundaries for his obsessive behavior. Plus, he failed to voluntarily comply with not contacting K.D. during the City’s investigation of the allegations….Thus, the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that Watson’s statements and conduct placed K.D. in reasonable fear for her safety.”
Likely to Continue
Langhorne Wilson found that there was no error in Canning’s determination that the behavior was likely to continue, declaring:
“Given the extensive evidence of Watson’s obsessive conduct, his repeated tendency to push boundaries and his admission to being ‘addicted’ to K.D., substantial evidence supports the finding of a reasonable likelihood the stalking will recur.”
She added that “we do not find the court abused its discretion by including the other protected parties in the restraining order,” saying “[t]he court need only find unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence against one employee, here K.D., and may then exercise its discretion, on a showing of good cause, to include other employees in the protective order.”
The case is City of Arcata v. Watson, A167819.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company