Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Board Member Janice Keating’s suit against the District and fellow Board Member Robert Frobose suffered what could be a mortal blow Thursday, August 15, when Stanislaus Superior Court Judge John R Mayne ruled against her claims of gender bias and sexual harassment.
From the very beginning, Keating’s claims against Frobose depended for the most part on alleged harassment that had supposedly occurred during a gathering of MID Board Members at La Grange Dam in southeastern Stanislaus County on January 17 of last year. According to Keating, the alleged harassment was witnessed by (now former) MID General Counsel Wesley Miliband and Public Affairs Manager Melissa Williams.
Many observers inferred from MID’s and Frobose willingness to litigate the case that Miliband and Williams would not corroborate Keating’s version of events. Thursday, Judge Mayne ruled that even if the alleged harassment had occurred, it was protected under Frobose’s First Amendment rights of free speech.
The First Amendment became an issue when MID and Frobose filed the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suit against Keating, alleging that her suit could be construed as an attempt to silence Frobose’s right to participate in political discourse within the parameters of public decision-making. According to Cornell Law School,
People bring SLAPP suits because they can either temporarily prevent their critics from making public statements against them or more commonly to make critics spend all of their time and resources defending the SLAPP suits. Given their ability to stop individuals from exercising their right to free speech, over 30 states have adopted Anti-Slapp statutes that make it easier for defendants in SLAPP lawsuits to have the case dismissed at the outset, before spending lots of money on attorney fees. In egregious SLAPP cases, an Anti-SLAPP statute may even require the plaintiff to pay legal fees of the defendant.
Judge Mayne’s decision is especially damaging to Keating’s case because it concludes that even if the alleged speech happened, it is protected speech because it occurred within the context of political discourse among elected officials and does not rise to the level of harassment.
Ironically, the alleged dispute between Keating and Frobose was about rehiring Ronda Lucas, an attorney who had successfully pursued a harassment case against MID in 2019 after being terminated. Frobose was in favor of rehiring Lucas because he felt she had been a good attorney for MID. Keating was against rehiring someone who had sued the district.
MID’s attorneys repeatedly emphasized that Keating had provided no evidence for her claims about Frobose’s harassment and was thus unlikely to prevail should the case center on evidence for her claims. The judge’s ruling made it clear that even if some of Keating’s claims were true, the nature of the alleged harassment did not meet the “severe and pervasive” standards necessary to establish a case of harassment and were therefore protected political speech.
Judge Mayne’s ruling should be the end of the case, except that Keating may face the penalty of having to pay MID’s and Frobose’s attorneys’ fees. That’s often the consequence for making unsubstantiated claims that interfere with people’s First Amendment rights, especially in matters of political speech.
Should Keating pursue her case despite Judge Mayne’s ruling, she still has the burden to prove her allegations. Thus far, she has not.
Judge Mayne’s decision was appropriate. Not many points and authorities were needed there, yet I am sure they were thoroughly cited.
It would be poetic justice if the plaintiff must pay all of MID’s and Frobose’s costs, and, then some. May this have been a humbling experience to reflect upon. Yet, forgiveness goes out to all no matter what.
good discussion. Happy that Robert was able to side step this complaint, as his passion for keeping water local is critical to the survival of our water supply