Verdict Slashed: City Wins Appeal in $2.9 Million Employee Case

Appeals Court Overturns $2.9 Million Verdict in City Employment Case

A California appeals court has reversed a multimillion-dollar jury verdict that found a city government liable for retaliating against a former high-level employee. The initial trial concluded with a $2.9 million award to the ex-city manager, but the appellate decision has sent the case back for a potential new trial.

A Dispute Over Termination and Motives

The case centered on the 2017 termination of the city's top administrator. The former manager argued the dismissal was an act of retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct by a city council member. The city maintained the firing was due to legitimate performance issues, including concerns about leadership and management of staff.

In the original trial, the jury sided with the former employee, concluding the city violated whistleblower protections. The substantial financial verdict was seen as a significant legal setback for the municipality.

Court Cites Flawed Jury Instructions

The Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned the verdict, focusing on technical legal grounds rather than the facts of the case. The justices determined the trial judge provided incorrect instructions to the jury regarding the legal definition of retaliation under California law.

Specifically, the court found the instructions did not properly require the jury to decide if the employee's protected activity was a "substantial motivating reason" for the termination. This legal error, the appellate court ruled, prevented the city from receiving a fair trial based on the correct standard.

What Happens Next?

The reversal nullifies the $2.9 million judgment. The case is now remanded, meaning it will return to the trial court level. Legal experts suggest the two parties could negotiate a settlement under this new legal pressure, or they could proceed to a second trial where a new jury would hear the case with the corrected legal instructions.

Officials for the city expressed satisfaction with the appeal ruling, stating it validated their legal position. Representatives for the former employee indicated they are reviewing the decision and considering their options.

What do you think?

• Should the legal standard for proving retaliation in the workplace be made easier or more difficult for employees to meet?


• Does the overturning of a jury verdict based on a technicality undermine public trust in the justice system, or is it a necessary safeguard?


• Are public sector employees held to a different standard than private sector workers when it comes to whistleblowing and termination?


• Given the high cost of litigation, should municipalities be more aggressive in settling cases before they reach a jury?