|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A former Pleasanton utilities director has filed a lawsuit against the city seeking unspecified damages following the rejection of his tort claim that sought $1.6 million for allegedly being wrongfully terminated due to retaliation for voicing concerns about the city’s water and sewer operations.
Dan Repp worked as the city of Pleasanton’s managing director of utilities and environmental services for almost three years before being fired in July, with the city administration mainly citing use of profanity toward a subordinate. But according to Repp’s legal challenges, cursing is common in the city government’s workplace and the actual motivation was City Manager Gerry Beaudin wanting to avoid fallout from Repp’s departmental revelations.
“Given the commonplace nature of foul language throughout (Pleasanton) and obvious ratification of it, the reason given by Gerry Beaudin for terminating (Repp) was pretextual,” Repp’s attorney Judith Wolff wrote in the new lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by the Weekly. “(Repp’s) termination was retaliatory, substantially motivated by Beaudin’s resentment of (Repp’s) engaging in protected communications, reports and complaints throughout his employment to Beaudin and other employees and agents of (Pleasanton).”
Repp’s lawsuit, which was filed in Alameda County Superior Court on Nov. 17, alleges whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, violations of labor law, discrimination on the basis of age, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress by the city and its representatives.
According to a letter of termination sent by Beaudin to Repp on June 30, the city determined Repp’s termination was justified based on an investigation into a complaint against Repp for allegedly creating a hostile work environment.
“This decision is based on among other things, the memorandum dated June 30, 2023, where the city determined that your use of profanity in the workplace toward a city employee was unprofessional and does not meet the expectations for your position as managing director of utilities and environmental services,” Beaudin wrote in his letter.
After the tort claim was filed in September, the city had 45 days to review the claim and determine whether it wanted to resolve it by agreeing to Repp’s terms or if it wanted to formally reject the claim. According to the original tort claim, Repp was seeking $1.4 million for what he would have made in salary and benefits at his job over five years had he not been fired, $250,000 in emotional distress damages and an undetermined amount of money that would go toward attorney fees.
Wolff said that because the city did not respond after the 45 days, the claim is considered “rejected by operation of law.” That led to her filing the civil complaint on Repp’s behalf with the Alameda County Superior Court — she confirmed that the court accepted the filing on Nov. 21.
Pleasanton city attorney Dan Sodergren declined to comment on the case this week while noting the city has “not yet been served with the lawsuit.”
The city, under the leadership of former city manager Nelson Fialho, hired Repp back in June 2020, after he left a similar job in Morgan Hill so that he could be closer to his elderly father who couldn’t live on his own anymore, according to the complaint.
Repp received positive recognition for his work in Pleasanton over those ensuing years. The complaint even references several of his past city performance reviews where he was given high marks and raises throughout his tenure for his excellent performance.
From the 2022-23 review, a superior ranked Repp as “exceeding expectations” almost across the board, with no score lower than “meets expectations”, according to the lawsuit.
However, this past March, Repp was placed on administrative leave after a former a laboratory services specialist who worked under Repp filed a complaint against him alleging that he “created an abusive and hostile work environment by demonstrating a lack of tolerance for dissent, yelling and screaming at employees, making gestures of anger, swearing in an angry manner.”
A third-party investigator was then brought on to conduct a workplace investigation that lasted about three months – a process that caused Repp to lose weight, sleep and experience heart conditions for which he is currently being treated for, according to the lawsuit.
Repp never returned to work following that internal complaint, with Beaudin determining the profanity toward a subordinate warranted Repp’s termination effective on July 14.
After being interviewed, Repp apologized for making the former female employee feel uncomfortable and went on to complete an anger management course, according to Wolff. She stated that the investigation concluded Repp “had not engaged in bullying or harassment, nor had he created a hostile work environment as defined by city policy.”
While the investigation failed to sustain any allegations made against Repp, it did note that Repp did swear in the workplace, which is something that the complaint argues is common in the city workplace, according to records in the case.
Repp’s lawsuit also features a full list of people he heard use foul language in the city offices, including Beaudin, the complainant herself, city directors, management staff and supervisors.
That’s why Repp’s attorney is making the case that his use of profanity is not the real reason why Beaudin fired Repp — instead it is, in fact, alleging retaliation for Repp raising issues with the city in protected communication, reports and complaints.
“The termination was a violation of labor codes … done in an attempt to cover up incompetence,” Wolff argues in the complaint. “(Repp’s) performance of his job, with the assistance of his staff, uncovered illegal, unauthorized and unlicensed conditions that the city manager and other interested employees and agents did not want made public and did not want to deal with. Said revelations reflected poorly on (Pleasanton) and on city management.”
One issue Repp called Beaudin’s attention to was the city’s wastewater utility not being in compliance with state law, according to the complaint, which pointed to a 72-page internal audit from 2022 titled “Sewer System Management Plan Internal Audit” which covered the time period of 2018 to 2020.
According to the complaint, the private contractor who completed the audit told Repp that Pleasanton’s sewer management program was “one of the worst he had ever seen in the state.”
“The audit found that (Pleasanton) is not capable of performing basic system maintenance because it lacks a management system to oversee maintenance of water and utilities,” the complaint alleges. “As a result, customers are paying for services they do not receive because (Pleasanton) lacks method, plan, equipment and knowledge to run the sewer maintenance program it charges for.”
Wolff argues that Repp had tried to address the issue with Beaudin by presenting a series of policies for the City Council to consider adopting; however, Beaudin disagreed with the recommendations and said the policies were not a topic for the council but rather a matter for the city manager’s office.
The complaint alleges other reasons Repp was retaliated against included Repp calling Beaudin’s attention to deficient billing from the Zone 7 Water Agency, bringing to attention an illegal sewer connection at the Alameda County Fairgrounds and not pushing for a quicker timeline on the recently completed water supply assessment project.
The lawsuit does not specify the amount of money Repp seeks in damages, back pay, legal fees and other costs — which Wolff said is typical for these types of superior unlimited civil court cases. Repp will be pursuing a jury trial.
In addition to the city of Pleasanton, five other individuals — who are not named in the complaint — are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
“The first case management conference is set for June 25th at 3 p.m., and the judge assigned to the case is Judge Noel Wise,” Wolff told the Weekly. “Trial date won’t get set for a long time yet.”
This is going to be costly for the City. 5 unnamed defendants? City Council members? With all the swearing that takes place everywhere and in every workplace seems an unreasonable firing.