ER - Verdict in Sheets Wrongful Termination

Jury decides in favor of Gallegos in wrongful termination suit against county
by Kara D. Machado, Christine Bensen-Messinger, 12/20/2006

A jury came back with a verdict in the Gloria Albin Sheets wrongful termination civil suit.

Albin Sheets, who now goes by Gloria Sheets, maintained Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos wrongfully terminated her in 2003 when she was a deputy DA in his office.

However, on Tuesday, the jury found he did not.

Sheets’ wrongful termination suit was filed on the basis of disability discrimination.

Outside the courtroom, Sheets said she was still digesting the verdict and was unsure what her next step would be in regard to the case.

“There are many options to consider,” Sheets said.

Sheets said she was obviously disappointed with Tuesday’s verdict.

“Mr. Gallegos, depending on who he’s around, has once again lied with impunity,” Sheets said, “and someone believed him.”

Gallegos said he was grateful for the time the jury committed to the case.

“I’m grateful for their decision,” Gallegos said. “Certainly, they listened to the evidence and they made their decision based on that.

“I feel sorry for Ms. Sheets. I hope this holiday season brings her some peace and happiness.”

Sheets’ trial lasted about one week and derives from her May 20, 2003, termination.

At that time, Sheets was sent a letter from Gallegos, letting her know her employment with the office had been terminated.

This occurred five months after Gallegos was sworn in and after Sheets had worked with the office for eight-and-one-half years.

Prior to her termination, Sheets had been on workers compensation leave for a disability claim.

Last Wednesday, Gallegos testified that he had to terminate Sheets’ employment due to loss of grant funding that helped pay her yearly salary of more than $80,000.

The letter he had sent Sheets, Gallegos said, cited the reason for her termination.

“The letter indicated that due to budget cuts and grant reductions,” Gallegos said, “I had to terminate her.”

The new budget was approved sometime in June that year and within a month Gallegos testified that he had terminated at least one other employee and that there were others who had furloughed or taken early retirement.

Although he did not sit Sheets down and tell her she might be terminated, Gallegos said he made it clear to the people in his office that budget cuts were coming and some jobs would be terminated.

In 2003, Gallegos said approximately 60 percent of the funding for the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office was paid for by grants. And, at the point of Sheets’ termination, Gallegos said the grants were either lost or would be soon.

“I know the decisions I made at the time were based on the information I had at the time,” Gallegos said. “At the end of the day, everything goes back to number crunching.”

Had the grants not been lost, Gallegos said Sheets would not have been terminated when she was.

However, Gallegos said he could not say what would have happened to Sheets’ employment in the long term.

Gallegos said it was also important to note the difference between terminating employment and firing, especially in this situation.

“(If I fired you), I would have asked you to leave, even if I had all the money in the world,” he said. “Termination means I don’t have the money, ‘Sorry, you have to go.’”

Sheets was represented by Stephen J. Duggan, of the Santa Rosa-based law firm Lanahan and Reilley LLP. The county was represented by John Vrieze of the Eureka-based law firm Mitchell, Brisso, Delany and Vrieze.

Duggan was not able to be reached for comment by deadline and Vrieze declined to comment.

The trial was presided over by visiting Mendocino Superior Court Judge Conrad L. Cox.

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.