Last May, Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Board Member Janice Keating filed a suit against the district and fellow board member Robert Frobose alleging gender harassment. The suit claims, among other things, that Frobose sought to intimidate Keating about her opposition to rehiring attorney Ronda Lucas to assist General Counsel Wes Milliband with the district’s legal issues. Lucas had prevailed in a gender harassment suit against the district in 2019, after what she considered a wrongful termination in November of 2018.
Lawsuits brought by individuals and organizations to discourage criticism and negative publicity about their speech and actions are often categorized as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Very often, SLAPP suits have the effect of tying defendants up in court and forcing them to spend time and money defending themselves.
Because of the chilling effect SLAPP suits can have on free speech, several states, including California, have enacted anti-SLAPP ordinances that protect First Amendment rights to speak out on public issues. Political speech has special protections, especially speech by elected officials.
On July 15, MID and Robert Frobose filed an anti-SLAPP suit against Keating. Several inferences could be made from the MID actions, most especially concerning Wes Milliband and MID Public Affairs Manager Mellissa Wiliams.
In Keating’s suit, Milliband and Williams were named as witnesses to Frobose’s alleged harassment of Keating during an inspection of La Grange Dam in eastern Stanislaus County. Keating’s suit further alleges that Milliband and Williams offered to file a complaint against Frobose on her behalf. No such complaint was ever filed.
Milliband and Williams were no doubt consulted before MID filed the suit against Keating. In that suit,
“Defendant [MID/Frobose] alleges that Plaintiff’s [Keating’s] claims are frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless, and, accordingly, Defendants should recover all costs and attorneys’ fees incurred herein.”
A reasonable inference here is that Milliband and Williams do not support Keating’s narrative of events that supposedly occurred during the La Grange Dam inspection.
Another potential problem for Keating is that the suit filed on her behalf refers to Frobose as an “employee” of MID. Frobose is an elected official, not an employee. Elected officials have broader First Amendment protection even than public citizens, because their service often features controversy, discord, and high passion. Additionally, Keating herself is not employed by MID and thus does not have the same legal protections as employees.
Keating also claims that Frobose has treated her rudely during MID Board meetings. Last May, Frobose said that all MID meetings are videotaped and available for anyone’s viewing. He urged concerned citizens to see for themselves whether his conduct toward Keating was ever rude or discriminatory.
Ironically, Keating and Frobose vote the same way on most MID issues. Their only major source of disagreement was over hiring Ronda Lucas. Now, Keating must produce factual evidence in support of her claims against Frobose and MID. MID and Frobose do not believe she can produce such evidence.
In fact, the MID/Frobose suit claims “Keating cannot meet her burden to show she is likely to prevail on her causes of action.” Again, this claim suggests Milliband and Williams do not support Keating’s narrative of events that occurred at the La Grange Dam meeting.
Janice Keating must respond to the anti-SLAPP suit by August 15. The clock is ticking.
Has the Modesto Bee ever reported anything related to Keating’s lawsuit for unlimited damages two months ago? It’s so sad that public and most ratepayers are oblivious to this fiscal liability. I appreciate this website and Eric Caine for shining light on local government. Thank you.
WHY does anyone vote for Keating?
She is mentally unbalanced, aggressive, and self-aggrandizing. And she takes public money for this.
I dislike imputing wrong motives, yet, how many wanna be water barons could be standing behind Keating’s attempt to control the goings on at MID? Could she be a patsy, could she be a plotter, or is she honest? Certainly MID customers have no interest in paying the tab to find out. Can we all get along, outside of court? Anti-Slapps are not inexpensive, yet, too many come ‘against public participation’ thus they become necessary.