Sharon McClain wins against Dan Shinoff and Del Mar Union School District; award is $388,537 plus interest

Sharon McClain

See all Sharon McClain posts.

Former Del Mar Union School District superintendent Sharon McClain won her case for wrongful termination/breach of contract.

McClain's attorney Dale Gronemeier successfully argued that the board didn't want to admit that it couldn't get along with its superintendents, and was worried about the political repercussions of buying out two different superintendents in two years, so it sought to trump up accusations against McClain and fire her for cause. The district was unable to convince the court that the firing was justified.

On October 3, 2012 the Court issued the following order (found on the Court's website):

COURT RULING: The Court finds judgment on the Amended Complaint(First Amended Complaint) for Sharon McClain Ed D and against Del Mar Union School District in the amount of: $388537.00 principal, $0 punitive damages, $0 attorney fees, $ interest, $0 prejudgment costs and $0 other costs. Interest is awarded from the time of breach at the rate of 7%.

The transcript pretty much explains the case.

But apparently somebody doesn't want the public to see the transcript. Who could that be, I wonder? I got a message today from the court reporter telling me I should erase the transcript from my website. But how did she get my private email address?


UPDATE October 9, 2012: EXCELLENT REPORTING BY THE DEL MAR TIMES

To its shame, U-T San Diego has not reported on the trial outcome in this case, although it published the details of the district's criticisms of McClain.

It appears that education commentator Marsha Sutton was unable to bring herself to write about the conclusion of this case, although she started out with a bang. I saw Marsha in court during the trial, but something seems to have stopped her from reporting about the outcome.

Fortunately, reporter Karen Billing takes up the slack in these situations:

Judge rules in favor of former Del Mar school district superintendent
By Karen Billing
Del Mar Times
October 9, 2012

While the trial ended Oct. 3 in the case of former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain versus the district, the specifics of the judgment of the wrongful termination lawsuit won’t be known for weeks.

“I won,” McClain said. “I feel vindicated. … The most important thing was the vindication to me that they did the wrong thing. I’m glad it’s been proven that they were wrong.”

McClain said she will be owed two years and three months in back payments, plus retirement from the California State Teachers Retirement System (STRS).

McClain’s attorney, Dale Gronemeier, emailed this newspaper copy from the court’s statement of intended decision that said: “The Court finds in favor of plaintiff for breach of contract in the sum of $413,500, which includes the district’s STRS contribution plus $32,000 for the tax sheltered annuity less the consulting income earned mitigation of $56,963. The total award to plaintiff is $388,537 plus 7 percent interest from the time of breach.”

However, the district’s attorney Dan Shinoff said that the judge did not blanket order those two years and three months in compensation and he believes the amount owed to be more like $156,000.

“I think that the verdict was in her favor,” Shinoff said. “I think it’s our obligation as officers of the court to make sure we’re never ever critical of a decision that a judge makes, but that doesn’t mean there still aren’t issues capable of being viewed from a different perspective.”

The Del Mar school board met in closed session on Monday. Oct. 8, to discuss the case but no action was taken. President Scott Wooden said that they are awaiting the court’s judgment and nothing will happen until that point.

“We’d all like to see it resolved,” Wooden said.

... Doug Perkins and Comischell Rodriguez are the only current board members who were a part of the previous board that fired McClain.

[Maura Larkins comment: Doug Perkins voted to fire McClain, costing the district much time and money. Comischell Rodriguez was the only board member with the courage to vote against the firing.]

...The transcript of the case will be made available later this week...

Read more: Judge rules in favor of former Del Mar school district superintendent



THE BIZARRE REPORTING OF U-T SAN DIEGO

On October 9, 2012 I added the following to this post: "To its shame, U-T San Diego has not reported on the trial outcome in this case, although it published the details of the district's criticisms of McClain."

Later that day, at 6:28 p.m., U-T San Diego published the bizarre and false headline, "Suit settled in favor of former Del Mar Superintendent."

But this lawsuit is most definitely NOT settled.

Why would anyone want the public to believe it was settled?  I think the answer is clear. Schools want to maintain the fiction that when they settle, it isn't because they violated the law, it's just to avoid legal fees, even though they never did anything wrong. The opposite is true. The system is set up so that lawyers, rather than wronged employees and students, receive the largesse of school insurer SDCOE-JPA (San Diego County Office of Education). 

A reasonable person would conclude that the court had actually overseen a settlement of the case. The word "trial" does not occur anywhere in the U-T article. The article refers to "legal proceedings" and mentions the name of the judge, and includes a recitation of board complaints against McClain.

The name of Dan Shinoff is entirely missing from the U-T article. Interestingly, the Union-Tribune completely failed to cover the sexual harassment lawsuit of former CVESD board member Patrick Judd, former superintendent of Mountain Empire Unified School District, although the Union-Tribune had endorsed Mr. Judd repeatedly.



MAURA LARKINS NOTE: 30 DAYS MIGHT REALLY MEAN 30 DAYS

Jack Sleeth and Dan Shinoff don't seem to believe that a law requiring 30 days notice actually means 30 days notice is required. We can all be skeptics, can't we?

pages 18-22 of the trial transcript

THE COURT:

LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU DO THAT AND I'M GOING TO ASK THE DISTRICT THE SAME QUESTION. WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE HER 30 DAYS' NOTICE? THAT'S SOMETHING I NEVER UNDERSTOOD FROM THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS TRIAL.

MR. GRONEMEIER:

MY ANSWER BEFORE AND MY ANSWER NOW IS THEY MUST HAVE GOTTEN BAD ADVICE...THAT'S THE BEST GUESS I CAN MAKE. I'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION, AND THEY'VE REFUSED LET ANYBODY ANSWER IT [in depositions]...

MR. SLEETH:

I THINK THE OTHER REASON IS WE INTERPRETED THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION DIFFERENTLY AND YOU HEARD OUR ARGUMENT... YOU HEARD OUR ARGUMENT THAT THE 30 DAY NOTICE DIDN'T APPLY TO MATERIAL BREACHES OF CONTRACT...

MR. SHINOFF:

THE DISTRICT SIMPLY HAD A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ...

THE COURT:

WELL, OKAY...I SUPPOSE THE ANSWER IS THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY AND THE SUPERINTENDENT HAD DETERIORATED TO THE POINT WHERE THE DISTRICT WAS WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK THAT THE 30 DAYS MIGHT REALLY MEAN 30 DAYS.




UPDATE OCT. 10, 2012

INVASION OF THE...BROWN ACT?
STUTZ LAW FIRM ADVISES: CALL US "WHEN THE BROWN ACT INVADES"

From the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz website:
Robert Mahlowitz Presents “Dragged Into Closed Session”

Attorney Robert Mahlowitz will present “Dragged Into Closed Session: The Ins and Outs of California’s Brown Act & Personnel Discussions” at the Fall Training Institute for the Association of Chief Human Resource Officers/Equal Employment Officers (ACHRO/EEO). The event will be held at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe October 24-26.

HR Professionals are often called upon to appear in closed session with their Boards to discuss personnel issues. Limited budgets may restrict access to legal counsel when HR Administrators have concerns about whether matters have been properly noticed, what notice has been provided to an employee and what to do when the employee wants a public airing of the discussion. Concerns also arise about potential personal liability for violation of the Brown Act. For 30 years, Stutz Artiano has served as legal counsel to community college and school districts in California and we will share insights to empower senior HR/EEO professionals for those times when the Brown Act invades.

[Maura Larkins comment: Stutz provided legal counsel to MiraCosta College throughout the Victoria Richart paroxysm, and to Grossmont-Cuyamaca during the Omero Suarez scandal.

Depositions allowed in lawsuit against Del Mar school district

“You’re not supposed to be able to take board members’ depositions,” Church [Ryan Church, an attorney with Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz] said.

But the court did not agree.

Depositions allowed in lawsuit against Del Mar school district
By Marsha Sutton
Del Mar Times
September 29m 2011

Over the defendant’s objections, a judge ordered at a hearing held Aug. 19 that depositions could be taken of former Del Mar Union School District board members Steven McDowell and Annette Easton, in the case of Sharon McClain vs. the DMUSD.

Other rulings overturned DMUSD’s objections to providing documents and interrogatory responses to former DMUSD superintendent McClain.

Attorney Dale Gronemeier, who represents McClain in her case against the school district for wrongful termination, called it a very successful hearing.

“We’re starting to get the information we need,” Gronemeier said. “I think we have broken down an approach to the litigation where the other side was thinking that maybe they could prevent us from getting meaningful discovery.”

Gronemeier requested the McDowell deposition in March, but DMUSD’s legal counsel made a motion to quash the notice of deposition.

“They immediately asserted that it was improper because of what’s called the deliberative process privilege,” said Gronemeier, explaining that the deliberative process privilege is a rule of law that does not permit inquiry into the motives of legislators.

The defendant, Gronemeier said, was claiming that members of an elected school board cannot be subpoenaed because they are legislators. But he said the issues in this case were administrative, not legislative, and the deliberative process privilege applies only to legislative acts.

Furthermore, he said the rule doesn’t mean one can’t take a deposition, but objections may be raised to certain types of questions.

Ryan Church, an attorney with Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, explained in a May 12, 2011 article in this newspaper that the deliberative process privilege prevents public board members from being deposed and bars judicial inquiry into the motives of public officials.

“You’re not supposed to be able to take board members’ depositions,” Church said. But the court did not agree.

“Defendant’s deliberative process privilege objection is overruled,” read the court documents. According to the court, “under the circumstances of this case, the strong public interest in ascertaining the truth in judicial proceedings outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.”

Two of Gronemeier’s motions, both granted, asked for the depositions of McDowell and the Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) about the issues. He said the district and its legal advisors identified Easton as the PMK.

“The entity has the right to select the person,” Gronemeier said. “I can’t impose who they are.”

“We’ve agreed to allow them to be deposed,” said DMUSD attorney Dan Shinoff, of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.

McDowell’s deposition was held Sept. 21 and lasted about six hours. Easton’s deposition is scheduled for Sept. 30, and Gronemeier said it may take three or four days. “There are a lot of facts in this case, a lot of details,” he said.

Shinoff said the judge at the trial will rule whether the information obtained by the depositions can be used as evidence. “For purposes of admissibility in trial, he’ll rule on it on a question-by-question basis,” Shinoff said.

Gronemeier said the testimony obtained from a deposition is valuable even though little of it is read in court. “I use it in the sense that I know what the person’s going to say,” he said.

Gronemeier will also seek the depositions of Doug Perkins, Comischell Rodriguez and Katherine White, the other three trustees who served during McClain’s tenure, because “the only people who have real knowledge of most of the events in dispute in the lawsuit are the five board members and Dr. McClain,” he said. Only Perkins and Rodriguez are still DMUSD board members.

McDowell deposition

McDowell was chosen first, Gronemeier said, because “we viewed him as a good starting point in this process.”

“Lawyers learn a lot in depositions, and you build an understanding from the depositions,” he said. “So by the time you get to the most important witnesses, you sharpen your knives quite a bit more.”

Gronemeier would not disclose specifics of McDowell’s deposition except to say that questions were related to McClain’s contention that the board did not have good cause to terminate her.

Termination for good cause, he said, requires an honest and thorough investigation. “So we’re looking at how adequately they conducted the investigation,” he said.

McDowell was also asked about his decision to abstain from the vote to release McClain, Gronemeier said.

Shinoff said the focus of the case is not why McDowell abstained. “The issue will be, did she or did she not breach the contract,” he said. “That’s the whole issue.”

McDowell was asked “all kinds of questions,” Shinoff said, “and he explained himself. He also provided the reasons why he thought there were very serious performance issues [with McClain].”

Both McDowell and Easton declined to comment.

Stutz Artiano attorney Jack Sleeth, considered an expert on closed-session open-meeting laws, handled the McDowell deposition and will represent Easton for her deposition Sept. 30.

Gronemeier said depositions can be contentious and are often an adversarial process. “But this was not a deposition where there was a lot of hostility,” he said.

Gronemeier praised Sleeth for his professionalism, calling him a very good lawyer. “Jack asserted many objections, most of which were to closed-session discussions,” he said. “Some were to attorney-client privilege. I have no criticism of the way he handled the deposition.”

Shinoff said Sleeth’s hourly rate is $170, to be paid by the DMUSD and its litigation insurance. Gronemeier said the cost of a deposition for his side will run about $1,000 per day for the court reporter, plus attorneys’ fees.

The other rulings

The hearing on Aug. 19 ruled on five motions, two on the depositions and three that overruled DMUSD’s objections to produce documents and answer interrogatories.

“Essentially it means I won on all the substantive issues,” Gronemeier said. He had sought monetary sanctions against the DMUSD, but that was denied.

Gronemeier filed the motions to seek relief for what he claimed were the district’s delaying tactics. “What they were saying is that Dr. McClain can get no deposition discovery,” he said.

When Shinoff’s firm requested documents and asked for a deposition of McClain, which took place over three days in June, “we didn’t stonewall,” Gronemeier said. “We don’t jerk people around in discovery.”

Shinoff had earlier alleged that it was Gronemeier who was delaying the process.

Besides documents, Gronemeier said the DMUSD also refused to release information about witnesses. “That got knocked down, and they have now provided the addresses and phone numbers of about 50 people they have listed as witnesses,” he said.

He also just received about one thousand pages of documents from the DMUSD that he had requested.

Shinoff minimized the importance of the August decisions, saying, “It was some names that they asked for that we provided, but that was the extent of the ruling.”

“It’s just part of discovery, and it has nothing to do with the merits of the case,” Shinoff said.

McClain was hired by the DMUSD on Sept. 17, 2008, at a base salary of $168,000, through June 30, 2009, the end of the fiscal year. Salary increases in the contract are listed as $178,000 for 2009-2010, $183,000 for 2010-2011, and $188,000 for 2011-2012. She was released from employment March 31, 2010,

In her formal complaint, she claimed the DMUSD breached her agreement on a number of grounds, calling the conduct of the DMUSD “arbitrary and capricious.”

The district’s evaluation, written September 2009, charged that McClain’s performance constituted a “breach of material terms” of the contract and cited deficiencies, willful neglect, failure to uphold contract provisions, and a “general inability to be effective.”

The performance review was signed by all five board members. The vote seven months later to terminate McClain’s employment, however, was 3-1-1, with Rodriguez opposed and McDowell abstaining.

Gronemeier said McClain seeks just compensation. “Our position is they have never … given her the proper notice, and her salary is still accruing,” he said. “The contract continues in force. It wasn’t properly terminated.” McClain seeks salary through June 30, 2012, the end of the contract.

McClain also contends that her retirement income was diminished by the loss of the extra years of salary. “The reduced pension benefits are very significant damages,” Gronemeier said.

In addition to monetary compensation, McClain is seeking the restoration of her standing in the community.

“She has been a very successful woman in her professional career, and what they did to her sullied her reputation,” Gronemeier said. “She wants vindication for that, and appropriately so.”

Despite the setbacks last month, Shinoff remained sure of his case. “I’m still very confident in the merits of my position,” he said.

Attorney fires back at Dan Shinoff over McClain case

See Dan Shinoff interview that triggered complaints by Sharon McClain's attorney.


Attorney fires back over McClain case
April 29, 2010
By Marsha Sutton
Del Mar Times

A letter from Dale Gronemeier, attorney for former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain, to DMUSD Board of Trustees attorney Daniel Shinoff offered responses to a number of Shinoff's comments made in an interview published on DelMarTimes.net.

The letter, dated April 26, was "a demand on behalf of Dr. Sharon McClain" that Shinoff retract four "false and defamatory statements" made in that interview.

The first issue concerns the $16,000 payment the district was to make to California's State Teachers' Retirement System on behalf of McClain, and the ensuing dispute over a change in the language of this section of her contract.

Gronemeier objected to Shinoff's statement in the interview that "there is no paperwork to support a change in her contract."

"As you well know because [you] have received the document on multiple occasions, the Board of Education agreed on June 17, 2009 to the change proposed by Dr. McClain - but then after it hired you, the board's majority and you refused to acknowledge the board's action," Gronemeier wrote.

Gronemeier attached to his letter a copy of the minutes of the DMUSD's June 17, 2009, special board meeting that included item #5 which read: "Motion to approve revisions to contract between the Board of Trustees of the Del Mar Union School District and Sharon McClain, Ed.D." The motion was made by Katherine White, seconded by Comischell Rodriguez and passed unanimously. The contents and exact wording of the revision were not revealed in the minutes.

Related to the STRS issue, Gronemeier said Shinoff, by innuendo, blamed McClain "for the breakdown in settlement negotiations."

"As you well know," Gronemeier wrote, "settlement negotiations were sabotaged by the board majority because Dr. McClain made a settlement proposal and proposed a mediator to try to get the matter settled, but the board declined to even respond or further negotiate in response to her last settlement offer."

Gronemeier said these statements "have a defamatory sting because they attribute to Dr. McClain the conduct of demanding that the board do something it had not agreed to do."


Holding an open meeting

Gronemeier's second concern was Shinoff's statement that McClain "chose not to have those [charges against her] heard in open session despite the fact that she asked for an open session." This referred to the school board meeting on March 31 when she was fired.

But Gronemeier said McClain did ask for an open session in order to hear the charges against her. "The interactions which you attempt to mischaracterize as Dr. McClain choosing not to have the cause(s) heard in public arose from sneaky conduct on your part to which Dr. McClain objected," he wrote.

Gronemeier said Shinoff told McClain just before the meeting began that each party should be allowed to speak for 20 minutes. "A fair-minded person would have communicated this expectation in advance rather than trying to disadvantage his adversary by communicated [sic] it at the 11th hour," Gronemeier wrote.

Gronemeier said McClain had expected to speak for five minutes, a time limit to which Shinoff agreed just before the meeting began, at McClain's urging. But McClain's attorney said McClain still expected the charges to be delivered against her, in those five minutes, and was prepared "to respond to whatever you or the board majority had dreamed up. But Dr. McClain is not long-winded, and she knows that there is no valid cause to terminate her contract. So she would have had a short message if you had articulated the purported cause(s)."

He said this "has a defamatory sting" because it suggests "that Dr. McClain has something to hide and did not want the purported cause(s) part of the public record." It also relieves "the board majority and you of the responsibility of articulating them."


Cause for termination

Thirdly, Gronemeier said Shinoff implied that McClain "is lying about knowing the cause(s) for termination of her contract." McClain has responded "to every potential 'cause' to terminate her contract that you have drafted for the board majority ... by rebutting what was false in such documents and by remediating where there was even arguably anything to remediate," he wrote.

Gronemeier said she "was and is mystified as to what purported cause(s)" exist for terminating her. He said this "has a defamatory sting because it asserts that Dr. McClain is lying to the community" as to what her knowledge of the cause(s) may be.


Releasing invoices

Gronemeier's fourth point challenges Shinoff's statement that McClain's action to release Shinoff's invoices last December was a violation of the law.

In the April 15 interview, Shinoff said, "How could she who had retained a lawyer go through attorney-client communications and decide what she was going to release? She couldn't do that. She's not a lawyer."

Gronemeier said this comment was objectionable because McClain did not release the invoices on her own but had an attorney redact the invoice descriptions.

"Your invoices are a public record; the public is entitled to know the fees that are being paid to you," he wrote. "The invoices have no legend indicating that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege (nor are they nor would that insulate them from public disclosure)."

He said the invoices were available to Dr. McClain "in the ordinary course of her duties" and that "it is simply untrue that Dr. McClain violated any law by disclosing those invoices."

This too "has a defamatory sting because it asserts that Dr. McClain is breaking the law," Gronemeier wrote.


Damages

In conclusion, Gronemeier demanded retractions of Shinoff's statements. "They create liability for slander and conspiracy to libel for your client, for you and for your law firm," he wrote, adding that a retraction would not necessarily eliminate legal harm to McClain but that McClain "would prefer to avoid litigating these issues and would forego suing for the defamations if they are appropriately retracted."

The letter was sent to Shinoff, with copies to the five DMUSD board members, McClain and Marsha Sutton, who conducted the April 15 interview.

The complete letter, all eight pages, was posted on Facebook and a Del Mar blogspot site on April 27. McClain acknowledged she released the letter to a parent in the district.


Shinoff response

In response to Gronemeier's letter, Shinoff replied within one hour with the following terse message: "I have reviewed your letter of April 26, 2010, demanding that I retract statements that I made to the reporter for the Del Mar Times. The reporter correctly reported what I said and I am confident that I can prove the truth of every statement that I made to her.

"I do not believe that you can show falsity in any statement, even by innuendo or implication. Further, I believe that a court would determine that Dr. McClain is a public figure and the discussion is of interest to the public, so you would have a very difficult time with a defamation action, even if there had been a factual misstatement. Finally, you would be subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute if you did proceed with litigation over the alleged defamation.

"I will not agree to retract anything that I said to the press. I stand by both the words I said, and the gist of the words."