Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

“Pregnancy brain”

That belitting phrase was uttered not by a supervisor, nor yet by a co-worker, but by a private citizen at a hearing where Amy Lee was being flayed by public commenters for her performance as assistant director of San Francisco’s Building Inspection Department. Even so, it has now resulted in a settlement in which the […]

That belitting phrase was uttered not by a supervisor, nor yet by a co-worker, but by a private citizen at a hearing where Amy Lee was being flayed by public commenters for her performance as assistant director of San Francisco’s Building Inspection Department. Even so, it has now resulted in a settlement in which the city has agreed to fork over $156,000 in damages and attorneys fees to resolve Lee’s charges of sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. Supervisor Tom Ammiano, not generally known as an enthusiast for employer’s rights, nonetheless

cast the lone vote on the board against the settlement [and] called the payout ludicrous.

The “pregnancy brain” remark was out of bounds, Ammiano said. But it was made at a public meeting, where officials take shots all the time, he said.

“You can’t control public comment,” Ammiano said.

Lee remains on the public payroll. (Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, “Former chief of Building Inspection gets damages”, San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 30).

Filed under:

3 Comments

  • So the liability theory is “they owned the space”? “They represent the people, and one of the people said it”? “They didn’t gag all spectators”?

    • By jb

  • I just don’t see what the city could have done, more than it did, to prevent this situation. It would have been an interesting question to ask the plaintiff’s attorney: should the city have pre-screened anyone attending, and ejected them if they said anything beyond what they proposed to say, in advance? Should it have immediately ejected or jailed any citizen who made a comment perceived to be offensive? I mean, some folks might think that it’s okay to run presidential press conferences like that, with loyalty oaths and all, but especially in SF, I would presume a jury would laugh at anyone proposing such ludicrous action.

    The case sounds, from what I read in the article, to be an absolute joke. But, more than that, it is not a case of damned-if-you-don’t, it seems, as much as the plaintiff now demanding money for the city’s refusal to take action against a citizen which would be illegal, in direct contravention of the first amendment. And people wonder why, when we read these stories, all we can manage in an inarticulate growl…

    Glenn

  • but especially in SF, I would presume a jury would laugh at anyone proposing such ludicrous action

    Unfortunately, that is not the case. It is the political correctness of the Left that is eviscerating the First Amendment.