ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 16 of 30 n.*" Mr, Williams stated that he did not expect or information for criminal charges or prosec intend the internal investigation to turn into a criminal investigation and that he never requested that charges be filed." (On June 27, 2007, Detective Harker sent his investigative report and Probable Cause Statement, which are based, in part, upon documents provided to him by Mr. Lucas, to the Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office. He indicated there was probable cause for charges of Theft I" degree for Mrs. Beahm. On July 19, 2007, Mr. Williams sent Mrs, Beahm a letter of proposed termination and notice of charges. ‘The charges were based upon the investigation conducted by Paul Lucas using the calendar fabricated by Sheree Jankowski“, The letter also proposed a pre-disciplinary hearing date of July 25, 2007 and Mrs, Beahim’s attomey requested a continuance to provide her aan opportunity to prepare for the meeting." The hearing was rescheduled to August 10, 2007, ‘On August 2, 2007, Mrs. Beahm’s physician wrote a letter to her attorney indicating that Mrs. Beahm was“, . .under a heavy burden of emotional distress of psychological which has exacerbated her anxiety and depression” and requested that the hearing of August 10, 2007, be postponed at least four weeks." (On August 8, 2007, Mrs, Beahm’s attomey faxed sent a letter along with a copy of the physician’s letter to The Office of the City Attomey of the City of Bremerton, The letter requested a postponement of the trial due to te physician’s request and trial commitments, the Declaration of Paul Lucas 45-6 © Declaration of Phil Williams 313-16. © See City Declaration of Phil Willigms3:10, and City Exhibit A ‘See Exhibit D, Email cor pondence fo Mr. Lucas See Exhibit E Longacre Law ‘9 Divison St, Stile F . Pon Orhan, WA 9366 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 16 (660) 8767290 F360) 876-0204Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 17 of 30 letter also requested that the City provide the records that had been requested for preparation before the hearing.“ (On August 9, 2007, Assistant City Attomey Ken Bagwell sent a letter to Mrs... Beahm's attorney stating he had reviewed the physician's letter and that the City was not willing to continue the pre-disciplinary hearing.“” On August 10, 2007, Mrs. Beahim’s attorney replied to the Office fo the City Attorney suggesting a postponement of the hearing until Mrs. Beahim had been provided access to the evidence necessary to defend herself and she had been given a release from her doctor to attend. ®* Phil Williams simply stated that Mrs. Bealm did not appear at the hearing and that she did not respond to the letter of July 19, 2007. ‘On August 17, 2007, Phil Williams sent a letter to Mrs. Beahm notifying her that she had been terminated. On August 3, 2007, a week before Mrs, Beahm's Pre-Disciplinary Hearing was scheduled she was charged with Second Degree Theft through the Kitsap District Court, ‘On August 10, 2007, a week before being terminated, Mrs. Beahm received charging documents in the mail On August 15, 2007 at approximately 4:00 p.m. , Phil Williams called Witness Jane Rebelowski and told her that he wanted to get together and talk. When Ms. Rebelowski entered his office Mr. Williams closed the door. Mrs. Rebelowski observed a termination letter addressed to Mrs. Beahm sitting on top of his desk in plain site. Mr. Williams started off the conversation by telling Ms. Rebelowski that he might regret this, but he wanted to talk to her about Ann Beahm, that because he knew that she was good friends with Ann. He told her that he thought © See Exhibit F © Seo Exhibit G Soe Exhibit 1 See City Declaration of Phil Williams 3:25-26 & 4:1, and City Exhibit B Lager aw S00 Donon, Suite Fon Oral Wa 88 Plaintif?'s Brief Trial Page 17 (Geer 7200 Fx ae) 76-020810 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document &4 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 18 of 30 Mrs. Beahm was getting some bad advice and stated that he would like to see if they could work ‘out something. Mr. Williams and Ms. Rebelowski discussed the events involving Mrs. Beahm ‘and he went on to tell her that Paul Lucas had conducted a thorough investigation, and he said ‘that when Ann worked in the Police Department, his investigation showed that she was stealing time from them. (Whereas, after a review by human resourees and the city attorney, those allegations were dismissed and Mrs. Beahm received a letter of exoneration from Captain Craig Rogers. See: Plaintiff's Exhibit 22.) Jane Rebelowski asked Mr. Williams what he wanted he to do with all ofthe information they discussed and he told her that he wanted her to go and talk to Ann, because they knew they hhad these charges against her and if she just repaid the City for the small portion they could prove, approximately $2,400.00, the Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office could probably make the charges go away. Mr. Williams told Mrs. Rebelowski that the Kitsap County Prosceutor’s Office ‘was well-know for their strong prosecution of people stealing public funds. Mrs. Rebelowski, again, asked Mr. Williams what he wanted her to do and he told her that he would consider ita personal favor if she went and talked to Mrs. Beahm and asked her to consider this and then they could just make it all go away. Mrs. Rebelowski then went directly to Mrs. Beahm’s home and spoke to her and her husband about the conversation. Mrs, Rebelowski was so upset by the conversation with Mr. Williams that it made her physically ill.” ‘On August 30, 2007, Mrs. Beahm and her attomey appeared in District Court where she did not accept an offer to participate in a Felony Diversion program and the case was moved to Superior Court, On September 11, 2007, Mrs. Beahm was charged with Theft in the Second Degree in Superior Court On September 16, 2007, an article entitled “City Worker Accused of Felony Theft” in 25, 41:1-2 28, 381-25, 3951-25, 40: Legare Lae 569 Divbion St Suite F _ et Orhan, WA 9366 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 18 (60) 876-7290 Fax (360 876-0204 ® Deposition of Jane Rebelowski 35:11-25, 36:1.25, 37Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 19 of 30 large bold print taking up three columns, and a substitle of “Ann Beahm’s attorney say's claims that she falsely recorded hours on her time sheet that she did not work are ‘hudicrous’ and smack of ‘retaliation’ was published in the Kitsap Sun newspaper.”” When the newspaper article was published Paul Lucas asked the four employees who worked in the Administrative area if they had seen the article, and he said that Mrs. Beahm deserves it, now everyone knows she is guilty, now in she is going to have a criminal record because she didn’t accept the offer. He asked someone to make a copy of the article for Phil Williams and he also made copies to disseminate through the offices upstairs”, The newspaper article published in the Kitsap Sun upset Mrs, Beahm and her family greatly. The experience was so humiliating to Mrs. Beahm that she dreaded and feared going anywhere that she might see someone she knew and she began staying home more and more, asking her husband to go to the grocery store and take care of other household activities that required her to go out in public in the area of Bremerton and Kitsap County. She also felt the burden that was placed on family members. For the past 10 ycars she had enjoyed participating in the Master Gardener Program and volunteering for public activities ‘throughout the County, which she no longer felt comfortable doing because of the anxiety and fears that she experienced. Now that the article had been published in the Kitsap Sun, Internet searches, i.e. Google,”* for Mrs, Beahm’s name result in the negative headlines coming up and she realized that this would remain with her as long as the Intemet existed and that she would have to live with this for the rest of her life. Although her criminal ease was dismissed, the Kitsap Sun never published this information. ‘On October 1, 2007, Mrs, Beal was arraigned in Superior Court. After arraignment sho See Extil ' ” Deposition of Lynn Horish 30:6-12, * See Exhibit J Lananer Law S69 Division S., Ste F ; Pan Orhan, WA 98366 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 19 (660) 376-7290 Fax (350) 876.020410 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 20 of 30 was placed in handeuffs in front of the entire court room and taken into custody, her attorney requested that they not do this and allow him to walk her into the jail, which they refused to do. ‘was never asked if she had any health problems or other concerns. Mrs. Beahm had never been arrested before or experienced anything like this, it caused her a great deal of humiliation, fear, nightmares and anguish, On January 4, 2008, the Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office reviewed Mrs. Beahm’s case and the charges were amended to Theft in the First Degree in the Kitsap County Superior Court, On May 2, 2008, the Superior Court Case against Mrs. Beahm was dismissed and again re-filed in Kitsap County District Court to misdemeanor charges regarding four (4) Counts of Theft in the Third Degree. At the time the charges were dropped from a felony to a misdemeanor, Mrs, Horish overheard Phil Williams and Paul Lucas saying that they weren’t able to prove all of their times they alleged theft occurred in the felony charges, but that there had to be a lot of other times because Mrs. Beahm had been in trouble when she worked in the police department. They said that she previously got caught over there and she was found to be guilty. (Whereas, she was 15.) Paul Lucas repeated his story about the police ‘exonerated of all those prior false allegati department quite often When Mr, Lucas used the copy machine in the Administration area he would talk to the employees whose work areas were there that Mrs. Beahm was guilty. Mrs. Horish also heard Mr. Lucas talking to Angela Woods, Sheree Jankowski and Bob Elsen on the telephone telling them ut Min et ewe en thr wn te! jo ke ray wae een. got away with it, He also told them that even the potice thought there was sufficient evidence to proseeute her.” ™ Deposition of Lynn Horish 36:10-25 and corretions, & 37:1-21 SepDein', SuiteF can, Was Plaintif’s Brief Trial Page 20 (ey stesso rx 0) tro0422 23 24 26 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 21 of 30 On December 2, 2008, all charges were Dismissed against Mrs. Beahm because she proved the charges against her were false. Mrs, Beahm filed a Public Disclosure Request, and obtain a copy of the letter issued by Captain Craig Rogers fully exonerating her of payroll and hour discrepancies” from the the City ‘of Bremerton which put an end to the false claims regarding her work with the BPD. Mrs. Beahm also obtained access to her email records which proved she was at her work station issuing numerous emails at times it was alleged she was not at work. These facts and other information she obtained proved false the violations against her in the criminal proceeding based upon the probable cause statement reckless made by Detective Harker Lynn Horish states that she heard Paul Lucas make the statement that Ann Beahm was dishonest on numerous occasions. She said that he would come out of his office into the Administration work area to use the copy machine and be talking with all four employees who ‘worked in that area present he would talk about how dishonest Mrs. Beahm was and that he couldn't wait for the article to come out in the newspaper.”” Although she fears retaliation for making these statements, Mrs. Horish referred to the incidents involving Mrs. Beahm as being blown out of proportion and that she honestly felt it was a “witch hunt”, She further clarified this by indicating that personnel involved came up with pretext or reasons to get rid of Mrs. Beahm so they could replace her with Angela Woods, who is younger, acted in a flirtatious manner and wore suggestive clothing. Mrs. Horish stated that she felt Mr. Lueas was the lead person moving with Mrs. Woods things along among supervisory staff and that he often went upstairs to vis and others... Mrs. Horish said she found it ludicrous that they picked on Mrs, Beahm because the entire Engineering Staff often took long breaks and lunches, as well as frequently leaving early 5 exhibi 7 Deposition of Lynn Horish 18:19-25 & 19:1-4 Lonsere Low ; : Port Orchard WA 98366. Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 21 (360) 876-7280 Fx (360) 876.020826 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 22 of 30 on Friday. Mrs, Horish advises that she had never of eny problems with Mrs. Beahm getting her work done, that there were accolades from Mike Mecham and others about her work performance.” Mrs. Horish also overheard Paul Lucas tell Mike Mecham and Phil Williams that Mrs. Beahm was only in it for the money.” Mrs. Horish stated there was constant gossip about Mrs. Beahm at the Public Works office.” Witness Joyce Brown states that she heard through the grapevine that Mrs, Bealm had been fired for putting time in that she actually hadn't worked, that it was the big buzz at the time, especially among the girls."° Witness Gunnar Fridriksson stated that there was gossip around the Engineering office, but that he wasn’t listening to it." Witness Linda Fulton stated that when she was hired permanently in February of 2008 she worked in the Engineering Division where Sheree Jankowski, Angela Woods and Kathy Kelleigh told her about Ann Beahm being accused of taking work home or working and paying herself for hours that she didn’t work, She also overheard parts of conversations between Angela ‘Woods and Bob Elsen when they were discussing how there was a case going on against Ann Beahm for putting in for hours that she didn’t work." Paul Lucas also told Ms. Fulton that Mrs. Beahm had been arrested and charges, that the charges were dropped and that now there was a lawsuit against him and other people.” Deposition of Lynn Horish 19:20-25, 20:1-25 @ 21 ™ Deposition of Lyan Horish 29:21.25 & 30: 1-5 Deposition of Lyan Horish 28:19.25 Deposition of Joyce Brown 8:10-25 & 9:1-2 * Deposition of Gunnar Fridriksson 13:1-4 Deposition of Linda Fulton (1:16:25 & 12:1-19 © Deposition of Linda Fulton 13:12-20 ongie Law 509 Division St, Suite F intlire ei or Ord, Wa 9835 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 22 (Go0yse-7290 Fx Gs) w76.0204Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 23 of 30 Paul Lucas wrote a Memorandum or the Record on May 31, 2007, the subject line was entitled “Engineering Payroll Discrepancies”. In this memorandum Mr. Lucas stated that he was told that Mrs. Beahm had left the Police Department because an investigation into payroll discrepancies. However, Mr. Lucas never mentioned that Captain Rogers wrote a memorandum fully exonerating Mrs. Beahm of any payroll discrepancies." Mr, Lucas went on to claim that Angela Woods told him that Ann Beahm was constantly pushing off tasks on her, berating her ‘when things weren’t done right, never answering the phone, and the length of her beaks and lunches. He made additional statements such as “it looked like there were serious discrepancies in the times Ann claimed to have worked when she was not present”, In his closing paragraph Mr. Lucas states that this had been going on for quite some time. ..”. He also claimed that the information was true and complete tothe best of his knowledge." Management staff never counseled or discussed these accusations with Mrs, Beahm and to her knowledge nothing was written or attached to this memorandum regarding these false claims.. Lynn Horish states that Paul Lucas watched television programs in his office that were not related to city business, such as bascball games, that exceeded lunch and breaks periods. She also stated that he often sleeps in his office, exceeding lunch and break periods, and that it got to the point where she would start making noise when she came into his office. She also stated that it was kind of a joke around the office."* Linda Shafer also stated that Mr. Lucas slept in his office and that if she needed to talk to him she would call ahead to make certain he was awake, or if you were walking into his office you had to knock real loud on his door to make sure he was awake. She even asked an Administration employee what to do and was told that if she Bibel "exhibit * Deposition of Lynn Herish 36:35:1-25 & 36:1. Lengree Law 50 Divison St, Suite F Po Orca, WA 58366 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 23 (360) 876-7200 Fax (360) 876-0204Case 3:08-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 —_ Filed 05/07/2010 Page 24 of 30 ‘made a lot of noise to make sure he knows you are coming then he will be awake when you get in there."7 Jane Rebelowski also confirmed that Mr. Lucas abused city time sleeping in his office. She said that you have to stand outside his door and make some noise and then you would hear his chair rattle, she said he was still shaking his head when you walked in, but she never saw him holding anything in his hands. Mrs, Horish stated that Mr. Lucas played games on the Internet at different times during the day for periods of more than 15 minutes. She also recalled a day when he was showing everyone in the office how to play leap frog for about 2 hours. She also saw other employees playing games on the Internet, but the main concer was that people got their work done, there was no employee monitoring system. She had never heard of anyone in Public Works, other than Mrs. Beahm, being accused of time theft.” In the deposition of Phil Williams on January 10. 2010, Mr. Williams confirmed that his Position is considered a public position, because he is a department head and that he can implement policy-making decisions. He also confirined that Mrs. Beahm was not 2 policy- ‘making person and he understood what that mean, Mrs. Beahm was present and heard him make these statements, Il, LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANTS A. — Defamation. A defamation plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) falsity, (2) an unprivileged communication, (3) fault, and (4) damages. Mohr v. Grant, 153 Wn.2d 812, 822, 108 P.3d 768 (2005); Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wn.2d 582, 599, 664 P.2d 492 (1983). The negligence standard of fault applies if the plaintiff is a private individual; negligence is established by a © City Deposition of Linds Shafer $4:19-25 & S3:1-3 City Deposition of Jane Rebelowski 107:1-7 ® Deposition of Lynn Horish 38:19-25, 39:1-25 & 40:1-20 Longacre Law 509 Division St, Suite F Fer Orca, Wa 88366 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 24 (850) 8767290 Fax (360) 876-0208i 12 13 14 16 7 19 20 2 23 24 25 26 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 25 of 30 preponderance of the evidence. Id. As a general rule, a person who republishes defamatory statements made by another does not escape liability for the defamation even though the repuiblisher is careful to ascribe the statements to the original speaker. Herron v, Tribune Publishing Co., 108 Wash. 24 162, 736 P.2d 249 (1987). Pursuant to RCW 4,24.510, a person who communicates a complaint or information t0 any branch or agency of federal, state, or local government, or to any self-regulatory organization that regulates persons involved in the securities or futures business and that has been delegated authority by a federal, state, or local government agency and is subject to oversight by the delegating agency, is immune from civil lability for claims based upon the communi agency or organization regarding any matter reasonably of concer to that agency or organization. Ifa defendant in a defamation action claims immunity under RCW 4.24.510 on the ground his or her communications to a public officer were made in good faith, the burden is on the defamed party to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did not act in good faith. The defamed party may defeat said immunity by presenting clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knew of the falsity of the communications or acted with reckless disregard as to their falsity. Gilman v, MacDonald, 74 Wn. App. 738-39, 875 P.2d 697, review denied, 125 Wn.2d 1010 (1994). See also: Bender v. City of Seaitle, 99 Wn.2d 582, 600-01, 664 P.2d 492 (1983); Lillig v. Becton-Dickinson, 105 Wn.2d 653, 658, 717 P.2d 1371 (1986). Plaintiff shall show clear and convincing evidence at trial that the calendar and accusations against that Mrs. Jankowskis calendar was a fabrication and that the claims regarding Mrs. Beahms absences Jankowski relied upon by here co-workers either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, Plaintiff shall show that the references in Harker’s probable cause statement regarding Mrs, Beahms prior “theft” from the BPD were Longue Law 560 Divison St, Suite F Pon Osha, WA 93365 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 25 (Geo) #7627200 Fax (380 #76020Is 16 "1 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 26 of 30 either knowingly false or reckless because the COB records contained a letter of exoneration and other information indicating that the investigation by Human Relations and the City Attomey determined the allegations to be unfounded. Furthermore, it shall be shown that Lucas wrote a defamatory memo and the defendants also repeated the defamatory false accusations about Mrs. Beahm around the Public Works facility via slander around the office which is not protected by RCW 4.24.510 because said statements were not made as part of an administrative proceeding by an authorized agency that handles such matters, ‘These statements were clearly gossip and private conversations being repeated outside the administrative process to third parties regarding statements of fact that were either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. B. Interference with a contractual relationshi To recover on a claim of tortious interference with contract, plaintiff has the burden of proving that: (1) That plaintiff was a party to a valid contract with the City of Bremerton; (2) ‘That defendants knew of the existence of that contract; (3) That intentional interference by the defendants caused a breach of the contract; and (4) That defendants? interference was for an improper purpose or by improper means; and (5) That the interference was the proximate cause of damages to plaintiff. Defendants argue first that it is “unclear whether plaintiff had a valid contractual relationship with the city.” Whereas, it shall be shown that plaintiff was the member ofa union is argued that that had a collective bargaining contract with the city of Bremerton. Second, defendants “did not cause” plaintiff's termination and that it was her failure to accurately report her time that cause her termination, Whereas, it shall be shown that plaintiff did accurately report her time and that the defendants either knowingly and/or reckless made false allegations against her regarding such. Finally, itis anticipated that the defendants shall argue that the individual Longacre Law 569 Dison St, Suite F s Pont Orca, WA 9836 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 26 (G60) 876-250 Fax (360 #760208Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 27 of 30 1 | defendants did act with an improper purpose or by an improper means. Whereas, it shall be shown that the improper purpose was to obtain Mrs, Beahm’s termination and that this was 3 || accomplish by an improper means: fabricated evidence and false accusations made either 4 || knowingly or with reckless disregard of the truth, 5]/C. Wrongful Discharge 6 In order to prevail on @ claim under the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public 7 || policy, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following four elements: (1) 8 || the plaintiff must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element); (2) The 9'|| plaintiff must prove that discouraging the conduct in which the defendant(s) engaged jeopardized 10 | the public policy (the jeopardy element); (3) the plaintiff must prove that the employee's 1 | public-policy-related conduct caused the dismissal (the "causation" element) and (4) The 12 | defendant(s) must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of 13 | justification element). Becker v. Cashman, 114 P.3d 1210, 128 Wash.App. 79 (Div.3 2005), 14 The plaintiff's argue that the existence of wrongful discharge as a matter of public policy 15 | depends solely upon plaintiff's prevailing on the Age Discrimination claim. We Disagree. 16 | A common law claim of wrongfl discharge requires that the discharge of an employee has 17 || abrogated a clear mandate of public policy. Thompson v. Si. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.24 219, 18 | 232, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984). 19 “In determining whether a clear mandate of public policy is violated, courts should inguire whether the employer's conduct contravenes the 20 letter or purpose of a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision for scheme. Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant 21 public policy. However, courts should proceed cautiously if called ‘upon to declare public policy absent some prior legislative or judicial 2 expression on the subject." 23 | Jd. (Quoting Pamar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Haw. 370, 652 P.2d 625, 631 (1982), 24 Plaintiff disagrees that her wrongful discrimination case must rise or fall on Age 25 angio Law 50) Diviien Si. Suite F 26 || Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 27Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 28 of 30 Discrimination as the only matter of public policy that was contravened by the defendants’ misconduct. The defendants also made false statements and presented false evidence to public officials. This is in abrogation ofa pubic policy pursuant to RCW 9A.76.175 which states that itis unlawfill to making a false or misleading statement to a public servant. It specifically states that: “A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. "Material statement" means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.” J D. Age Discrimination. To establish a prima facie case for Age Discrimination the plaintiff has the burden of proving cach ofthe following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the defendant discharged the plaintiff; (2) that the plaintiff was over 40 years of age; and that the defendant would not have discharged plaintiff but for her age. Gross v. FBL Financial Services Ine., 129 8, Ct. 2343 (2009), Defendants allege that plaintiff can not prove “but for causation” of age discrimination because she was discharged in good faith for misconduct. Whereas, plaintiff shall prove that Paul Lucas wanted to replace Mrs. Beahm with a good looking, flirtatious younger woman with little or ‘no work experience and that had only recently been hited by the city of Bremerton. Moreover, it shall be shown that the defendants used! false testimony and fabricated evidence in order to get Mrs. Beahm fired and criminally prosecuted. Further, it shall be shown that Paul Lucas unethically used the criminal process to deter Mrs. Beahm from fighting to save her job. The evidence will show that complaint about Mrs. Beahm was false. The evidence will show that he went around the office asking various employees to Paul Lucas’s claim that employees independently came to him “watch” Mrs. Beahm and report back to him in the hope that he might be able to find something he could use to get rid of her. Longer Law 569 Division St Suite F ra Por Orca, WI 98566 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 28 (360) §76-7290 Fax (360) 876-020424 25 26 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 29 of 30 IV. DAMAGES Defendants claim that any award of back pay oF front pay to Mrs. Beahm should be reduced significant because she has failed to mitigate her damages. Mrs. Beahm shall show at trial that she has made significant efforts to obtain employment. Its also argued that any damages for emotional distress should be modest because of prior history of depression, anxiety and other psychological disorders. However, the issue is not her past problems but, rather, what was her psychological condition atthe time of termination and the impact of the emotional distress inflicted upon her at the time. Prior disorders are of no consequence, if the person has recovered prior to the infliction of emotional distress. V.CONCLUSION Plaintiff will prove that she was terminated because of her age and that the termination was willfull and done with malice. Accordingly, plaintiff will seck punitive damages (double the front and back pay plus attorney fees). The city is liable for this misconduct because itis liable for the misconduct of it assistant director and because the City of Bremerton ratified Mr. Lucas’s misconduct, Plaintiff will show that she worked the hours she claimed she worked and that the evidence against her was based upon false statements, misrepresentations and fabricated evidence. With respect to defamation, the evidence will show that the defendants are not entitled to qualified privilege. Finally, plaintiff will show that the defendant interfered with her contractual relations with the city of Bremerton by jointly presenting false witness and fabricated evidence against her in order to get her discharged from employment. Respectfully submitted this 7" day of May, 2010. layton “Ernot Longacre Clayton Emest Longacre #21821 Attomey for Plaintiff Leng Lo Senior, Site Plaintif’s Brief Trial Page 29 Geoeresn rex Ge) 876020810 12 13, 14 15 16 7 18 9 20 22 23 24 25 26 Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84 Plaintiff's Brief Trial Page 30 Filed 05/07/2010 Page 30 of 30 Lensere La 509 Divison St, Site F ort Orch, WA 98366 (360) 876-250 Fax 36) 876.0206