OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge will allow the retaliation claims of former Oakland Police Chief Anne Kilpatrick against the city to go to trial.
“I am pretty confident we will be going to trial,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley said from the bench Thursday.
The city of Oakland sought summary judgment, which is when a judge rules on a matter of law because there is no dispute about the underlying facts in the case, only whether those facts constitute a given violation. But Corley made it clear during the hearing, which was conducted remotely via Zoom, that there were some material disputes between both parties.
“Why isn’t there a disputed issue of fact in interpreting whether this rule was violated?” Corley asked Oakland's attorney Katharine Van Dusen of Coblentz Patch during the hearing.
The fact the judge is asking about disputed issues of fact indicates she believes the outstanding issues that came up during the hearing are matters to be settled in front of a jury, not through summary judgment.
The city of Oakland argued Kilpatrick could not bring the matter to trial because her firing stemmed from something other than protected activity. But Kilpatrick claims she was fired from her position as police chief in 2020 because she exposed how members of the independent police commission abused their power and demanded special treatment.
In one of the instances brought up during Thursday’s hearing, a police commissioner asked Kilpatrick if she could help her get out of some fines related to having her car towed. Another incident at a school occurred when a police commissioner called the police to have them attend to a problem, then flashed her badge and asked police to investigate something specific.
Van Dusen attempted to argue that neither of these incidents actually constituted infractions of the commissioners' duties, therefore Kilpatrick was not engaged in whistleblowing when she reported the incidents to higher-ups but was instead reporting neutral incidents within the city and should not be considered a whistleblower.
It was clear Corley was not persuaded by the legal gambit, particularly at the summary judgment phase, and said the issue of whether the activity was actual whistleblowing should best be left for a jury to decide.
“Let’s use common sense here,” Corley said toward the top of the hearing. “The chief says in her email that she was meeting with the commissioner because she was asking a favor regarding tow fees. She draws the inference contemporaneously.”
The inference Corley is referring to is the status of the police commissioner. Van Dusen attempted to argue that since the police commissioner never explicitly referred to her role on the oversight board that could impact the chief’s job, it wasn’t a crime.
But Corley said the chief clearly inferred from the request that a quid pro quo situation was afoot.
The judge said she did not have a trial date in mind, but it was clear from the hearing that movement toward a trial would be expeditious and could happen within the calendar year in the absence of a settlement.
Established by voters in 2016, the Oakland Police Commission wields limited power to change department policies and review officer misconduct. And it can unilaterally fire police chiefs for cause, or without cause if the mayor approves.
Kirkpatrick was fired by the commission and Mayor Libby Schaaf in February 2020. Schaaf delivered the news to Kirkpatrick by phone on Feb. 20, but weeks earlier, Kirkpatrick had received a visit from the mayor who informed her of the commission’s intention to fire her.
Follow @@MatthewCRenda
