A suit alleging sexual harassment and political impropriety against former Riverside County Supervisor Jeffrey Hewitt and his chief of staff survived a motion for summary judgment April 15.
Matthew Shannon, the chief of staff, argued that the plaintiff and former Hewitt staff member, Brenda Dennstedt, cannot establish grounds for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Shannon argued that Dennstedt cannot prove his conduct was extreme or outrageous, or that she sustained severe emotional distress from his conduct. He also argued that Dennstedt could not establish any duty between them—a requirement for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
“Mr. Shannon made every effort to help Dennstedt succeed in her position and maintained a friendly relationship with her. Dennstedt, however, continually refused to follow directives and attempted to use her position in the Supervisor’s office to gain benefits and special treatment for herself and her loved ones. As a result, she was released from her employment,” Shannon argued in his motion for summary judgment.
The complaint
Dennstedt’s complaint alleges violations of campaign laws, sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination and improper firing.
Dennstedt, who now serves on the board of directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, was hired by Hewitt as his legislative assistant/public safety liaison around March 2019, and was fired Oct. 26, 2020, the complaint says.
She claims Hewitt and Shannon required their staff to attend political fundraisers, in violation of both county policy and state law. She also alleges that Shannon used county employees to run personal errands, that they filed inaccurate forms that violated the California Fair Political Practices Commission. One form improperly listed the purchase of box seats at Dodger Stadium as fundraising expenses, she claimed.
Hewitt also commented on Dennstedt’s body, asking once, “Who are you hoping to unzip you out of that dress?”, among other comments, according to the complaint.
The complaint further alleges gender discrimination through Hewitt’s alleged prioritization of men’s projects over women’s.
Dennstedt was not given a reason for her firing, and was not given her personnel file when she requested it despite having a statutory right to it, she claimed.
Her complaint implies she was fired after she told Shannon she would be telling the District Attorney a story he told her about breaking the window of a car in San Diego to retrieve his stolen phone.
Causes of action
Five of the causes of action in Dennstedt’s complaint were against the county: violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, harassment based on sex/gender, retaliation, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation and wrongful retaliation.
Only two causes were against Hewitt and Shannon: the causes for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Shannon filed his motions for summary judgment to remove himself from the lawsuit.
He claimed in his motion that Dennstedt was fired for stepping outside of her job duties to help her romantic partner and fire a political opponent, and that her complaint contained vague descriptions without evidence.
Shannon argued he never made inappropriate comments to Dennstedt and never spoke to her in a sexually suggestive way—and that Dennstedt herself discussed her dating life. He said he did attend a Zoom meeting in a robe—but that was because he was ill.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
To bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must allege extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress.
Plaintiffs also must prove they suffered severe emotional distress, and that the cause of that distress was the defendant’s conduct.
According to Riverside Superior Judge Daniel Ottolia’s judgment, Dennstedt provided the declarations of two other Hewitt employees, Thomas Kuhlmeier and Barry Busch, to support her case.
Between her own declaration and theirs, there was evidence that Shannon and Hewitt teased Dennstedt about her dating life and made sexually suggestive comments, including the question about her dress. They also said that Shannon attended Zoom meetings in a robe, even when he was not sick, and walked around so everyone could see it. They also said that Hewitt once said, “I like my coffee like I like my women, strong and black,” in front of Shannon and other employees. They also claimed they made inappropriate jokes about high school female wrestlers, and once talked about the case of Jeffrey Toobin, a CNN commentator who was fired for masturbating on a Zoom call, saying, “What else are you going to do? People get bored.”
Based on the evidence provided by the declarations, Dennstedt established a triable issue of fact whether Shannon engaged in extreme or outrageous conduct, Ottolia found.
As far as the creation of severe emotional distress, Ottolia accepted Dennstedt’s stated disgust and counseling sessions as sufficient to prove emotional distress.
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Shannon argued he had no duty to Dennstedt, according to Ottolia. The judge disagreed, finding that Shannon had a duty not to unlawfully harass or discriminate against her in his position of authority over her and her employment.
Shannon’s allegations
In his motion, Shannon argued that Dennstedt attempted to obtain benefits for her romantic partner, a county code enforcement officer. He claimed that she attempted to promote him from a low-level management position to director of the department, and seek better office space for him, even though management of code enforcement was unrelated to her job duties.
Dennstedt also investigated a county flood control employee for using county cars and other property improperly, outside of her job as public safety liaison, Shannon argued. He claimed Dennstedt had a political issue with the flood control employee, with whom she served on the Western Municipal Water District Board of Directors. She also was abusive toward junior staff, and called a Black coworker “nappy,” Shannon alleged.
His motion claims that the final reason for Dennstedt’s firing was mismanagement of a community cleanup event in Cabazon, during which she attempted to reassign sheriff’s deputies from traffic control to door-to-door engagement.
Case information
Joseph Richardson and Brynna Popka of Ontario’s McCune Law Group* represent Dennstedt.
Natalee Jung of Pasadena’s Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo represents Riverside County. Jamie Wrage of Stream Kim Hicks Wrage & Alfaro represents Hewitt. Karen Capasso of Smith Law Offices represents Shannon.
Riverside Superior Judge Daniel Ottolia presides.
Case No. CVRI2200885
Read the complaint here.
Read prior coverage here.
Read Shannon’s motion here.
Read Ottolia’s judgment here.
*McCune Law Group funds Follow Our Courts.
