In a trial that commenced in Santa Barbara Superior Court last week, former county executive Heidi Garcia is alleging that she was demoted and eventually terminated because of racial and religious discrimination levied against her by former Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services (ADMHS) director Dr. James Broderick and his successor, Doug Barton.
The county, however, is suggesting that Garcia’s incompetence in the department’s second-highest position led to some of the fiscal woes the long-beleaguered organization now finds itself in.
After opening statements late last week, Garcia herself was the first to take the stand. According to Garcia, she sees this treatment by former director of ADMHS Broderick and former interim director Barton as an act of discrimination based on her being a Jewish woman.
After the trial, Garcia said her basis for believing this, particularly on Broderick’s part, is that he had made comments about her womanhood. According to Garcia, Broderick noted how she was the first woman he had ever supervised, and how she had a “strong personality.”
Religion, she said, was also an issue with Broderick. “He regularly talked about his Catholic upbringing and education and characterized it as a superior education, and culture, in a sense, and so that led me to believe that possibly he could be bunking down on people of other religions,” she said.
Their relationship was not always so rocky. Although she said she noticed these comments from the beginning, during her first few years of employment beginning in 2002 they “worked very well together.” However, she alleges that everything changed in 2005 after Broderick suffered a heart attack, after which point he began to shout at her, act disrespectfully, and, to use her words, “humiliate” her. This continued until she subsequently filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after which point, she said things only got worse. She said she was passed over for high profile projects and generally excluded from department matters.
After Broderick resigned, he was replaced by, as Garcia said, his “friend” Doug Barton, whose previous firing she said she had taken part in. Barton was in the process of “reorganizing” the department, and in May 2007 swapped Garcia’s position with that of Al Rodriguez, the manager of ADMHS’s alcohol and drug programs. Garcia had been the head of the mental health services side of the department, a role she said had much greater responsibility. She viewed the transfer as a demotion, although the pay stayed the same.
Garcia — who has a master’s degree and is working on her psychology doctorate — and her lawyer Matthew Clarke claimed Rodriguez, who does not have a bachelor’s degree, was much less qualified for the position. However, Jake Stoddard, who is defending the county, said in his opening statement that Rodriguez had produced much better fiscal results. He said ADMHS was in severe budget trouble, and that all of it was coming from the mental health side of things.
On the other hand, Stoddard said, Rodriguez had produced a surplus in his department. However, according to Garcia and the document describing her position as assistant director, budget matters were not a major responsibility of hers. Stoddard did not get a chance to cross-examine the witness during Thursday’s proceedings, but is expected to get the chance Monday.
Also expected to testify at trial is County CEO Mike Brown, various other ADMHS executives, and other county officials.
After five years of generally favorable performance reviews and several raises, Garcia was terminated by courier in July 2007 while away from the office. She said she was devastated, and remained unemployed for a year until she found a job as a therapist for significantly less pay than she had received working for the county. She is suing for damages related to that year of unemployment, although she would not comment as to how much compensation she is seeking.
She alleges that discrimination was the basis of her mistreatment and termination, started under Broderick and carried out by Barton. However, Stoddard noted that her first complaint to the EEOC, in the form of a letter, did not reference the discrimination she marked down in her second complaint, the form from the EEOC on which she identified her sex and religion as the basis for discrimination.
However, Garcia said she did not see anybody else receive the same level of disrespect. “I felt that he was targeting me … I felt very discriminated against, and I did not see him treat other people in that manner,” she said. The trial will continue through this week.
Two pieces of information in this story have been corrected since its original posting: Al Rodriguez (not Refugio Rodriguez) took over mental health services, and Doug Barton was an interim director and is not the current director.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Face it lady- you are a terrible worker. It wasn't your gender nor your religious preference.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2010 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“He regularly talked about his Catholic upbringing and education and characterized it as a superior education, and culture, in a sense, and so that led me to believe that possibly he could be bunking down on people of other religions,”
In a sense? Was it, or wasn't it.
I went to catholic school and by fourth grade had rejected the papist version of Christianity. That having been said, there is no question in my mind that the catholic school part of my education was far better than the public school part. I know others who are also non Catholics who feel the same way about catholic school.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2010 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
She was fired just for being "incompetent"? This sets a dangerous precedent as many government employees qualify for termination on those grounds,
zorro (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2010 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Rodriguez was able to save the department money, the only way he could have done it would be to deny services to those who are mentally ill.
buckwheat (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2010 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That he talked about his "upbringing and education" led her to believe that possible he could be debunking down on people of other religions. This is her reaction to him, not necessarily anything he might have actually said or meant. If he had a certain type of upbringing , such as schooling ,well, that is what he knew of. Not necessarily making a comparison, and certainly not something to have a lawsuit over. In my opinion.
What she "felt" and what was really happening may have been two different things. Some just like to play the victim, especially after losing a job, perhaps, for incompetency.
bajamama (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2010 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should it matter what superstition this lady believes in or that someone else believes in another superstition. Do people really care about that anymore? Is the "being a woman" defense even valid these days when most of the city is run by women?
Yeah, dream on lawsuit.
FootlooseInSB (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2010 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Something is really rotten in the state of SB county. More squandering of taxpayer's money on frivolous law suits, while they continue to grossly mismanage their funds and their relationships, screw community based organizations, and prioritize their own jobs and fat pensions over the needs of the people they are supposed to serve. What a sorry mess, wake up Board Of Supervisors and DO SOMETHING!
jennywren (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2010 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"jennywren," you may need to re-read the article; an ex-employee is suing the County.
Employee lawsuits are common to all large employers, and this one is indicative of very little, let alone "squandering of taxpayer's money on frivolous law suits," as you claim.
Based on the information here -- which is preliminary and limited -- it would seem to fit into one of those 'life happens' slots.
binky (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2010 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will take a different slant on Binky's comment while not trying to contradict it. Jennywren says "wake up Board Of Supervisors and DO SOMETHING!" I say to Jennywren that the only way to make them do anything is to make them accountable by not rewarding them with power. I know I'm guilty of digressing here, but I see people getting angry about our politicians but they keep reelecting them.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2010 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Those of us who worked under her had no idea that she was Jewish. All we knew was that we cringed at the thought that she was going to come to the unit knowing full well that anything she touched would become more time consuming and complicated taking us, yet again, away from patient care to fill out her voluminous paperwork.
taz (anonymous profile)
August 25, 2010 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a crock! When I worked with Garcia, I never knew she was Jewish, but I did know she was incompetent. I remember when she stood in front of our staff at a big budget meeting and apologized for a big, big boo-boo that cost the dept hundreds of thousands of dollars. Really, look it up, around late 2006, I believe. Her "leadership" is part of the reason I lost faith in the dept and left.
Her lawsuit is laughable!
gottabekidding (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2010 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe it was those burgers she brought in every Friday.
Walter (anonymous profile)
August 26, 2010 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess you have to ask why there is still so many incompetent people at the county? Why did they fire her when 50+% of the county (and city) workers I have worked with are incompetent. What about the rest of the incompetent workers? Was she less senior so they could take her out as a budget issue?
She must have been really really really incompetent.
loneranger (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2010 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)