Court Upholds Award of $5 Million to Terminated California Firefighter

The California Court of Appeals has upheld an award of $5 million in damages to a firefighter who was terminated in 2018. Timothy O’Hara was fired from the Liberty Rural County Fire Protection District after his relationship with Fire Chief Stanley D. Seifert deteriorated.

O’Hara claims he was repeatedly written up by the chief, and denied the opportunity to appeal his punishment as required by the California Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights. The chief also recommended he find another place to work. Seeing the writing on the wall, O’Hara applied for a lateral position with another department, but prior to him being offered the position, an anonymous defamatory letter sent to several area departments ended that opportunity.

O’Hara called Chief Seifert to discuss the anonymous letter, which led to a heated argument, resulting in O’Hara’s termination for insubordination. O’Hara filed suit claiming his termination and subsequent lack of an opportunity to appeal the chief’s decision violated his rights under the FPBOR, and violated his due process rights. The complaint included a count of defamation related to the anonymous letter.

In November, 2021, a jury agreed with O’Hara on the FPBOR and due process claims, but rejected the defamation claim relative. As explained in the Court of Appeals’ decision:

• [T]he jury found that Seifert intentionally or deliberately flouted the law by denying O’Hara due process.
• The jury further found that O’Hara proved by clear and convincing evidence that Seifert engaged in the conduct with an evil motive or demonstrated reckless indifference to O’Hara’s constitutional rights.
• The jury further found that Seifert did not make a reasonable mistake as to what the law requires.
• As also noted, the jury found that Seifert did not author the anonymous letter.
• The jury awarded total damages of $3,107,507, an amount that consisted of $2,071,671 for economic losses ($325,436 for past lost earnings and $1,746,235 for future lost earnings) and $1,035,836 for noneconomic losses ($295,953 for past noneconomic loss and $739,883 for future noneconomic loss). The jury awarded no punitive damages.
• The trial court … entered an additional tax gross-up award of $1,301,457, which was incorporated into the judgment for O’Hara.
• [T]he trial court concluded that O’Hara had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Seifert and the District maliciously violated the FPBOR and was entitled to a single civil penalty of $25,000 under [FFPBOR] section 3254, subdivision (d). That amount was also added to the judgment.
• The trial court heard argument and awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $594,630.

The district and Chief Seifert appealed the case to the Court of Appeals. The court upheld the trial court rulings, holding as follows:

• Seifert and the District argue the evidence compels findings in their favor as a matter of law on the section 1983 cause of action and the civil penalty award. We are not persuaded.
• Seifert and the District have failed to show the evidence compels findings in their favor on substantive due process as a matter of law.
•  They likewise fail to show the trial court erred in denying the motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict so far as the section 1983 cause of action was concerned.
• On the record before us, we perceive ample evidence from which the jury and trial court could have found that the violations of due process were an actual and proximate cause of O’Hara’s emotional distress.
• Therefore, we see no reason to disturb the jury’s special verdict or the trial court’s order denying the new trial motion as to noneconomic damages.
• Seifert and the District next challenge the trial court’s tax gross-up award.
• A majority of federal appellate courts have held that district courts have discretion to award tax gross-ups under statutes authorizing “make whole” awards.
• Seifert and the District do not make any serious attempt to argue that the discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy under section 1983 does not include the discretion to award gross-up damages.
• Under the circumstances, we conclude they have failed to establish error.
• Finally, Seifert and the District argue the trial court erred in apportioning attorney’s fees between O’Hara’s successful section 1983 and FPBOR causes of action and his unsuccessful defamation cause of action. We perceive no error.
• Although the jury found Seifert was not responsible for writing the letter, there was evidence supporting the opposite conclusion, which would have been related to the question of malice.
• That question, in turn, was legally related to O’Hara’s demand for punitive damages under section 1983 and civil penalties under the FPBOR.
• The trial court, having heard the entire case, was in the best position to determine whether the issues were so intertwined that apportionment would be impossible or impractical.
• No abuse of discretion appears.
• The judgment is affirmed. Respondent [O’Hara] shall recover his costs on appeal.

Here is a copy of the decision: