Evans v. POST: $8.3M Whistleblower Retaliation Verdict

Case Background

Tamara Evans worked as a Law Enforcement Consultant II for the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) from 2004 until early 2013. During her tenure, she managed federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grants, which involved overseeing contracts with third-party training centers like the San Diego Regional Training Center (SDRTC). Her career took a sharp turn after she began questioning the financial integrity of these grant operations.

Cause

The conflict began when Evans noticed discrepancies in the invoices submitted by SDRTC. She reported that the center provided insufficient documentation and used improper budget-based billing practices. Despite her warnings, her superiors at POST pressured her to approve the payments. Evans refused, believing that paying the unsupported invoices would violate federal law. Following her reports and a subsequent negative audit by the California Emergency Management Agency, Evans faced a series of professional setbacks. She claimed that POST retaliated against her by stripping her of her program manager duties, denying her a promotion, and eventually firing her in March 2013.

Injury

Evans suffered significant professional and personal harm as a result of the agency's actions. The retaliation damaged her reputation within the law enforcement community and effectively ended her career in the field. She experienced severe emotional distress, including damage to her sense of identity and mental health, which witnesses later described during the trial.

Damages Sought

Evans sought compensation for both the money she lost and the emotional toll the experience took on her life. Her legal team requested "Economic Damages" to cover her past and future lost earnings. They also asked for "Non-Economic Damages" for the pain, suffering, and mental anguish she endured because of the wrongful termination and the years of litigation that followed.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The trial took place in the Eastern District of California before Judge Daniel J. Calabretta, lasting from September 3 to September 24, 2024. The proceedings focused on whether Evans was a legitimate whistleblower and if her firing was a direct response to her reports.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Tamara Evans

· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Phillip H. Allman | Amy Oppenheimer

Defendant(s): California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), Edmund Pecinovsky, and Anne Brewer

· Counsel for Defendant(s): Annabelle J. Yang | Joseph R. Wheeler | Arang Chun

· Experts for Defendant(s): Kristoffer M. Hall | Margo Ogus | Ronald Morrell

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Evans' legal team argued that she was a dedicated public servant who did the right thing by flagging potential fraud. They claimed POST created a "paper trail" of negative performance reviews only after she became a whistleblower to justify getting rid of her. POST’s counsel countered that Evans was terminated for entirely unrelated, legitimate reasons. They argued her performance had declined and cited specific incidents of misconduct, such as insubordination and neglect of duty, as the true cause for her removal.

Claims

Evans originally brought several charges, but by the end of the trial, she focused on one primary claim: retaliation for whistleblowing in violation of California Government Code section 8547.8. She asserted that her reports about the misuse of VAWA grant funds were protected disclosures and that POST punished her for making them.

Defense

POST denied all allegations of wrongdoing. They maintained that they followed all standard procedures and that any adverse actions taken against Evans were the result of her own behavioral and professional failings. The defense emphasized that Evans would have been fired anyway due to her conduct, regardless of her reports about the grant funding.

Jury Verdict

On September 26, 2024, the jury reached a unanimous decision in favor of Tamara Evans. They found that she had reported improper activity in good faith and that her whistleblowing was a contributing factor in the agency's decision to take adverse action against her.

The jury originally awarded Evans a total of $8,763,286 in damages. This award included:

$1,239,956 for past lost earnings.
$1,566,600 for future lost earnings.
$3,400,000 for past non-economic damages (pain and suffering).
$2,000,000 for future non-economic damages.
$556,730 was specifically identified within the award for tax neutralization purposes.

Following the verdict, POST filed motions to overturn the decision or grant a new trial. Judge Calabretta denied the motion to overturn the verdict but offered a reduction in future economic damages. Evans accepted this reduction, leading to an amended final judgment in May 2025 that lowered the total award to $8,308,599. The Court also awarded Evans $22,944.77 in legal costs.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com