Matthew A Thompson vs. City of Chico et al

Case Background

On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff Matthew A Thompson filed a Wrongful Termination lawsuit in the California State, Butte County, Superior Court (Case number: 22CV01393). Judge Michael P Candela, Philip H Heithecker, Stephen E Benson, and Tamara L Mosbarger presided over the case.

Cause

Matthew Thompson worked as an engineer for the City of Chico for 32 years, from 1987 to 2019. He received promotions and favorable reviews throughout his tenure. In July 2019, Public Works Director Brendan Ottoboni instructed Thompson to draft a Notice of Intent to Discipline for his coworker Burgi. During Burgi’s subsequent Skelly hearing, Thompson testified under oath that he did not believe the disciplinary notice was warranted. Shortly after his testimony, on August 7, 2019, Ottoboni began preparing documentation to terminate Thompson’s employment. The City fired Thompson on August 9, 2019, citing “insubordination” and “incompetence” as reasons for the termination.

Injuries

Thompson’s reputation suffered when the City labeled him insubordinate and incompetent. He endured severe emotional distress, including mental anguish, fear, humiliation, sleeplessness, headaches, and anxiety. The termination damaged his sense of self-worth and belonging in the community. Thompson also faced uncertainty about his future and survival after losing his long-term employment.

Damages

The City’s termination of Thompson’s employment after 32 years resulted in the loss of his sole source of income. He experienced financial losses due to lost wages and benefits. His reputational harm may impact future job prospects. Additionally, he suffered emotional distress and the loss of professional standing in the community.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Matthew A Thompson
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Patricia Anne Savage| Nicole B Reimer

 

  • Defendant(s): City of Chico | Brendan Ottoboni
    • Counsel for Defendants: Vincent Carlton Ewing| Sharon Ponce de Leon Medellin

Claims

Thompson alleged multiple legal violations by the City of Chico and Brendan Ottoboni:

  1. Retaliation under Labor Code §1102.5 for whistleblowing.
  2. Retaliation under Government Code §12940 for participating in the Skelly hearing.
  3. Age discrimination under Government Code §12940, as he was over 40 years old.
  4. Associational discrimination due to his association with coworkers over 40.
  5. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
  6. Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  7. Violation of his free speech rights under the California Constitution.
  8. Defamation for labeling him insubordinate and incompetent.
  9. Violation of due process rights under the California Constitution by failing to provide a name-clearing hearing.
  10. Negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Defense

The City of Chico and Brendan Ottoboni presented a robust defense. They issued a general denial of all allegations, asserting that Thompson failed to state sufficient facts for a cause of action. Further, they claimed he was an at-will employee, subject to termination without cause or notice, and argued that their actions were taken in good faith for legitimate, non-retaliatory, and non-discriminatory reasons.

The defense raised several affirmative defenses, including estoppel, laches, and the statute of limitations. They alleged that Thompson engaged in willful misconduct and failed to mitigate his damages. They also claimed Thompson did not exhaust his administrative remedies and did not meet bona fide occupational qualifications. The defendants argued that Thompson could not perform essential job duties and failed to engage in the interactive process or accept reasonable accommodations.

Additionally, the defense contended that accommodating Thompson would have caused undue hardship. They claimed to have discovered misconduct by Thompson that would have justified his termination regardless of the complaint’s allegations. The defendants invoked Government Code §820.2, stating that public employees are not liable for injuries resulting from discretionary acts. Lastly, they demanded a jury trial and sought dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, along with costs, attorney’s fees, and any other appropriate relief.

Jury Verdict

On August 27, 2024, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, City of Chico and against the plaintiff.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request