 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Lawson Lamar .comDISCLAIMER: THIS IS A POLITICAL WEB SITE TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC REGARDING OPINIONS ABOUT LAWSON LAMAR. IT IS NOT THE PERSONAL HOME PAGE OF LAWSON LAMAR, STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA New Information! The litigation has now come to an end by mutual agreement of the Parties. This litigation began in September 1995 with the filing of an EEOC complaint, and ended in April 2002, with the signing of a settlement agreement between the Parties. Lindamood filed suit against the Court Administrator that controls access to State Attorney emails, in the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, under the Florida Public Records Act, found at Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, under case number CI96-9029, when she was denied access by that office to certain State Attorney's office emails that were public records. She obtained the emails, using an established vendor under contract to the County to provide computer services including such file restores. Some of these emails are posted elsewhere on this site, and she was awarded fees and costs of the litigation in the amount of $12,520.28 against the Court Administrator because of that office's withholding of public records. Lindamood
filed suit in the Circuit Court for Orange County, Florida, under
the Public Employee Whistle Blower Act, found at 112.3187-31895,
Florida Statutes following her termination in 1998. Lindamood's
case number is CI 98-4599. Lindamood filed suit after the State
Attorney's Office failed to give a reason for her termination to
the Office of the Public Counsel (investigating Lindamood's claim
of whistle blower retaliation) other than that she "no longer
served at the pleasure of the State Attorney." The Office of
the Public Counsel by law investigates complaints of retaliation
against Whistle Blowers and the statute provides for temporary reinstatement
of the employee where the Public Counsel has found the employee
complaint was covered by the statute and not barred by an allegation
of misconduct committed by the employee prior to filing the complaint.
There are protections under Florida law provided for both public
employee and privately employed whistle blowers. Click here to view
the Public Employee Whistle
Blower statute. Click here to view the
Private Employee Whistle Blower statute. Initially, her petition
to return to her previous employment heard by the successor trial
judge in state court (the first judge assigned this case removed
himself from consideration of the case because of his friendship
with persons at the State Attorney's office) was denied and Lindamood
filed an appeal of the denial to the Florida appellate court. The
5th District Court of Appeals, in August 1999 issued an opinion
that called for her temporary reinstatement pending the resolution
of the ultimate issues at trial. That opinion is found at Lindamood
vs. Office of the State Attorney, Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida,
731 So.2d 829 (Fla. 5thDCA 1999). The federal court action was filed in the summer of 1998 under case number 98-457-Civ-Orl-19C. The trial in Federal Court on charges of employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for retaliatory termination for filing a charge of discrimination under Title VII was held February 22-24, 2000 and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. There were 6 changes in assigned judges the first 5 weeks the case was set for trial. They picked a jury before one judge and came back 2 weeks later to trial before another. The trial judge was Senior District Court Judge Peter Hill Beer, from the Eastern District of Louisiana. HERE ARE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (AND THE APPEAL TO THE 11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) 1. Denial of the opportunity to present relevant evidence of a pattern and practice of discrimination at the state attorney's office including admissions of salary discrimination by the Chief Assistant and salary comparisons involving other assistant state attorneys, while the defense was allowed to present evidence over their objection of an allegedly comparable male's salary. Denial of the opportunity to show an animus against females by the refusal to allow introduction of evidence of certain female attorneys being referred to as "pregos" and being assigned certain duties by virtue of their pregnancy status. CLICK HERE to see the excel spreadsheet Lawson stipulated to at trial with only a few alterations from Lindamood: She numbered the attorneys and took out their names. She also added the 1999 figures, and filled in the blank on one attorney whose 1998 pay she overlooked. These 66 attorneys are felony attorneys. The pay records that form the source for this information came from the State Attorney's office directly, or from the Justice Administrative Commission and represent a calculated annual salary at that point in time. 2. Denial of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine witnesses and to rebut allegations Lindamood denied about Lindamood having made allegedly false accusations of a crime against high officials in the State Attorney's Office (relating to attempts at computer email intrusion and major public records pulls"). 3. The judge's refusal to follow the standard 11th Circuit jury instructions. 4. The judge's crafting his own jury instructions that adopted the terminating official's First Amendment theory of the Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1964) case. The jury instruction wasn't even requested by defense counsel. The instruction, while found to be "error" by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, was not "reversible error." 5. The judge's allowing the terminating official to state his First Amendment theory during his testimony. 6. The judge commenting on the evidence, weight of the evidence, and the credibility of the terminating official. CLICK HERE to view the MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND FOR A NEW TRIAL. Lawson's attorney, after calling him to the witness stand, began by saying No need to ask your name˜" and without ever identifying him by name for the record, commenced questioning. JUDGE PETER BEER Judge Peter Beer was born in 1928, the son of Mose Beer and Henret Lowenburg Beer. He earned a B.B.A. in 1949 from Tulane University (His father also attended Tulane). He earned his L.L.B. from Tulane in 1952, and his LL.M. from the University of Virginia in 1986.He was an adjunct faculty professor at Tulane's law school from 1977-1981. A former partner in the New Orleans law firm of Montgomery, Barnett, Brown & Read, his relationship with the firm extended from 1955 to 1974, including that period from 1969-1974 when he served as a City Councilman, before he was elected to the Louisiana Court of Appeal (1974-1979). The web site of Martindale Hubbell ( http://www.martindale.com ) describes Montgomery, Barnett, Brown and Read and its clients. The firm's clients include Chevron Oil Company. A former vice president and general counsel for Chevron Oil Company (then known as the California Company) named Lamar resided in New Orleans from 1940 until his death in 1978. His family origins stem from the same Georgia roots as Lawson's. This Chevron executive was appointed by President Eisenhower in 1959 to serve as a representative from Louisiana (together with the Presidents of Tulane University, and Dillard College, and three Louisiana ministers) on the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The New Orleans Times Picayune reported on four separate occasions in the 1970s concerning testimony before the City Council (when Judge Beer was a member), by the wife of this individual, who was herself a community activist, newspaper columnist and host of a weekly gardening show on the New Orleans Public Broadcasting System station for 20 years, concerning various issues of concern to the community. Other members of the Lamar family also resided in New Orleans, including an heir to the Lamar Advertising firm established by Charles Wilbur Lamar, whose family origins also stemmed from those same Georgia roots as Lawson's. Judge Beer served on the Louisiana Supreme Court as a temporary appointment from 1978-1979, until he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to serve as United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The New Orleans Times Picayune articles from 1979 (see particularly "Federal Judge Confirmation Should Come Soon for Beer" November 8, 1979) reflect that the United States Senators from Louisiana, including Russell Long who spoke at the confirmation hearing, initially failed to nominate any female judicial candidates, causing President Carter to balk at the appointment. Judge Beer won nomination only after another candidate nominated dropped out. Louisiana papers reported on a case Judge Beer presided over in New Orleans in January, 2000 involved dismissal of civil racketeering charges against former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards and his Chief of Administration, Raymond Laborde¤the case involved the awarding of the state's workers compensation insurance contract to the brother of an Edwards' campaign contributor. The social columnist in the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that when Judge Beer made senior" status (federal judges have life tenure), the then Governor Edwards was there on the celebration party's guest list, along with Laborde. The judge's daughter, Kimberly Beer Bailes, married C.E. Bailes, III, the heir to the Jack Holloway ABC Liquor fortune. Bailes is President and Director of ABC Liquor. Central Florida ABC, PAC is a campaign contributor to Lawson (as recently as September, 1999). Judge Beer did not disclose any conflict of interest to us prior to the start of the trial. Judge Beer and other federal judges have been guests at a Montana dude ranch sponsored by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment" ("FREE"). John A. Baden is the founder and chairman of FREE and of Gallatin Writers. Their web site, describing the program offered to federal judges, is found at http://www.free-eco.org/activities_judges.html. OR SEE Ruth Marcus' April 9, 1998 article on the front page of the Washington Post, Issues Groups Fund Seminars for Judges." Major conservative contributors fund these programs˜The Post was able to obtain a list of judges who attended under a Freedom of Information Act request (that's the federal equivalent of the Florida Public Records Act). The FREE web site lists other Think Tank" conservative links. Judge Beer did not report the value of the free seminar on his financial disclosure. In April 1995, a reporter for the New Orleans Times-Picayune wrote about Judge Beer's colleague on the bench, Judge Helen G. (Ginger") Berrigan. Judge Berrigan had been a criminal defense attorney before taking the bench, and visited some of her former clients (lifers) at Angola Prison, where she (as an honorary member of the Lifers Club) told them she hoped they were out of prison soon. The reporter voiced the sentiment in the article that wasn't a particularly sensitive remark toward the rights of the victims of these convicted felons, and the paper received a letter to the editor from Judge Beer: (Times-Picayune, April 19, 1995) The Times-Picayune has come up with a front page cheap shot at Judge Ginger Berrigan that is neither intellectually honest nor fair by any evenhanded measure. Perhaps unintentionally, you've sought to undermine public confidence, at a critical time, in a federal judicial officer whose ability, integrity and fair mindedness are outstanding. How picayune of you. Peter Beer, U.S. District Judge." LAWSON'S TESTIMONY that Judge Beer refused to allow Lindamood to rebut: Lawson testified Lindamood made major record pulls" under the Public Records Act that ran to reams of paper. Her first pay records request took up 2 pages. The largest document she requested was her own personnel file. The statute provides that a person can be billed for the expense associated with complying with the request¤they never did. Two witnesses, Chief Assistant Vose and Press Information Officer Randy Means testified Lindamood made a false criminal complaint against Means with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), accusing him of breaking into then 9th Circuit Chief Judge Belvin Perry's emails. One said he saw Lindamood on TV, then said he thought" he saw Lindamood on TV about the issue. The local ABC affiliate carried the story about Judge Perry's complaint that she saw on TV. An attorney colleague at the state attorney's office advised Lindamood by email (a public record) he once had 42 attempts to break into his email account when he was demoted into Lindamood's Intake position, after she was sent to Kissimmee (after she revealed a huge backlog of unworked and in some cases, unlocatable felony cases). See www.stateattorneys.com for further info. He was told by the systems administrator, and related this information to Lindamood in the email, that the administrator suggested to him that maybe she was trying to get in to locate something she left there on the computer in her old office. The computers in the office were nothing more than a keyboard and a monitor, connected to a server--a "dumb" terminal. Lindamood knew from past experience that the systems administrator had the ability to see what was on her computer screen once before when her computer locked up and needed her help to get out. 2 of the 3 office computer experts left the State Attorney's Office when Randy Means became the head of the unit in July 1995. Lindamood found what she alleged to be pay inequities and emailed the office (including Lawson) with her findings on April 16, 1995. Somebody at the State Attorney's Office alerted Judge Perry concerning her possession of the pay records. He contacted Lindamood for a copy of the pay records. She emailed the Judge, and days later, saw the TV coverage of the Judge complaining about computer intrusions. Before she could tell the Judge of the 42 attempts to break into her colleague's account (she also had 2 attempts to break in her own), he had already revoked certain of the State Attorney's Office system access privileges. Here are the details of the access denial, which Lawson complained about. CLICK HERE to see the restrictions Judge Perry placed on them, days before Lindamood contacted him. CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LETTER, SIGNED BY LAWSON LAMAR COMPLAINING OF THE JUDGE'S ACTION. (Note: The actual documents below are available via hyper linked Adobe PDF documents. To view the documents, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer. If you don't have it, click here to download it.) Lindamood learned from Judge Perry and the TV coverage of FDLE's investigation. She suggested to FDLE that the systems administrators did have certain capabilities and Randy Means recently became the supervisor of those people, two out of three of whom left the State Attorney's Office at the time Means became their supervisor, because she felt they had a need to know that information pursuant to their investigation. By this point in time, Judge Perry had already revoked certain computer privileges. Lindamood was later told by FDLE that the investigation had been dropped at the request of the judge. Using the public records act she got a copy of the FDLE report and the documents you see above on this site. Another person other than Means was the suspect named in the FDLE investigation. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Lindamood's complaints of Judge Beer commenting on the evidence, weight of the evidence, and credibility of the terminating official in a footnote in an unpublished, unsigned opinion. "After careful review, we find no merit to these contentions and affirm without further discussion." Extract from The opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:
The issues raised in Lindamood's appeal are in controversy among the various federal appellate circuits. In the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), United States Supreme Court Justice O'Conner, writing for the court defined "direct evidence" (that evidence which would shift the burden of proof of discrimination from the Plaintiff to the Defendant to justify the adverse action taken against the Plaintiff's employment) in terms of what it was not. Judge Beer refused to give the Price Waterhouse jury instruction she requested. Legal scholars have recognized the conflict between the circuits, and the difficulty of defining concepts in terms of what they are not, and have suggested the time was ripe for the United States Supreme Court to revisit the issue. With over 7,000 cases submitted annually for review and only about 100 cases accepted, she took the expensive gamble that Lindamood's would be the case to resolve these conflicts. It was not. The Orlando Sentinel, in an article on October 31, 2001 entitled, "The Power of Appeal; Businesses Seem to Have Plenty of Clout in Employment-Discrimination Cases, "by Tiffini Theisen reported that "...companies are far more likely than ex-workers to get verdicts they don't like thrown out--more than seven times more likely, according to two Cornell Law School professors who analyzed nearly 1,300 such cases from 1998 to 1997." The American Bar Association (ABA) reported on its web site, http://www.abanet.org/journal/nov01/njobs.html , in an article, "Equal Treatment? Study shows a wide gap between worker, employer wins in job bias appeals," by Susan Mandel, that plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases fared "worse in federal appellate job bias cases than any other kind of civil case." USEFUL LINKS WHISTLE BLOWING SITES:
JUDICIAL REFORM:
|