Vagnozzi Preparing Legal Action As Upland Council Mulls Possible Termination

Upland City Manager Jeannette Vagnozzi is threatening to sue the City of Upland based upon repeated discussions the city council has held in closed session relating to her performance and what was characterized as prejudicial action against her, her attorney has confirmed.
According to Vagnozzi’s lawyer, Woodland Hills-based Terry Goldberg, last month, “on or about April 29, 2019,” the City of Upland, meaning some individuals employed by it, acting on its behalf or otherwise associated with it, “harassed” Vagnozzi.
Vagnozzi is the victim of intolerance vectored her way, Goldberg said, based on her “religious creed, dress and grooming practices, sex/gender, medical condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), age (40 and over), marital status,” and other issues associated with her being a “member of a protected class.”
Goldman suggested Vagnozzi was the object of the harassment and derision because of prejudice. He reiterated that Vagnozzi “was discriminated against because of complainant’s religious creed” which he said “includes dress and grooming practices, sex/gender, medical condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), age (40 and over), marital status, association with a member of a protected class and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege.”
Vagnozzi was also mistreated because she did not go along with the attitude she encountered, Goldberg said.
“Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment and as a result was terminated, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or retaliation, denied any employment benefit or privilege.”
Additionally, according to Goldberg, Vagnozzi “has suffered discrimination, retaliation, and harassment based on her protected characteristics/activities.”
According to Christina Lara, Goldberg’s assistant, Goldberg’s firm, Goldberg & Gage, filed with the State of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing a discrimination complaint on Vagnozzi’s behalf on May 2. In a rapid turnaround, the State of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing on the same day, according to Lara, sent to Vagnozzi, in care of the Goldberg & Gage firm, a document known as a notice of case closure and right to sue. That letter states that because Vagnozzi, through Goldberg, had requested an immediate right to sue, the State of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing would not itself pursue an investigation of the alleged discrimination but rather had cleared Vagnozzi to pursue a lawsuit against the city in a California court of competent jurisdiction on her own, according to Lara. The letter states that Vagnozzi has one year to file such a civil action from the date of the letter. Moreover, according to the letter, if Vagnozzi intends to pursue a case against the city for discrimination in federal court, she must seek a federal right to sue letter within 30 days of receiving the May 2 letter or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier.
On May 7, Upland City Clerk Keri Johnson was notified by a letter from Lara dated May 6 that Vagnozzi had obtained a right to sue letter form the State of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
While the complaint filed with the State of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing by Goldberg on Vagnozzi’s behalf seemed to suggest that Vagnozzi had been terminated, that is not the case. She remains, as of today, as Upland city manager. There have been three previous closed door council discussions with regard to her performance since March. While the agenda items relating to all three of those signaled that Vagnozzi’s performance was to be discussed, none of them mentioned termination. All three of those were at specially-called meetings rather than at normally scheduled council meetings, which entail an open public meeting within the city’s council chambers before and within earshot of the public, but which often also involve adjournment prior to the public portion of the meeting of the council into an executive session behind closed doors to which the public is not privy. California law in the form of the Brown Act – the state’s open public meeting law – permits the governing boards of local governments to conduct such private meetings to discuss a limited palate of issues, specifically potential or actual litigation involving the city or agency, negotiations with public employee unions relating to collective bargaining, negotiations for the sale or purchase of real estate, and the hiring, performance evaluation, disciplining or firing, of employees of the city or agency.
At a specially called meeting on March 4 the council had a closed door meeting for the purpose of a “public employee performance evaluation” relating to the city manager. There was no action reported to the public after that meeting.
At a specially called meeting on March 17 the council had a closed door meeting for the purpose of a “public employee performance evaluation” relating to the city manager. There was no action reported to the public after that meeting.
At a specially called meeting on April 29 the council had a closed door meeting for the purpose of a “public employee performance evaluation” relating to the city manager. There was no action reported to the public after that meeting.
In addition to Goldberg’s complaint erroneously asserting that Vagnozzi has been terminated, it also inaccurately states that Vagnozzi resides in Woodland Hills. In fact, Vagnozzi is a resident of Rancho Cucamonga.
Next Monday, May 13, at its normally scheduled meeting, the city council is again scheduled to take up the subject of the city manager’s performance. The agenda for that item differs from the three previous scheduled discussions in that it calls for a “performance evaluation and consideration of public employee dismissal” relating to the city manager.
Vagnozzi told the Sentinel, “I have a right to representation, and I have retained a lawyer to make sure I am represented.”
She acknowledged that there were some inaccuracies in the way in which Goldberg had characterized her claims against the city. The inference that some have drawn is that she is claiming she is being ostracized because of her sexual orientation, her manner of dress or the church she attends. She said that “is incorrect information. Perhaps he [Goldberg] confused me with another client. I am not homosexual and do not actively have any sign of cancer though do receive treatment from an oncologist. I attend a Catholic church. I have not been terminated at this time but have had numerous closed session ‘evaluations.’”
She said she had only recently retained Goldberg . “I am not sure where the responsibility for the miscommunication lies,” she said.
She acknowledged that there was a significant distinction between the evaluations of her performance the council had scheduled at the recent specially-called meetings and the upcoming May 13 regular meeting. “The previous closed sessions didn’t go beyond my performance review,” she said. The inclusion of the terminology “termination” in the agenda for the executive session discussion on Monday, she said, is an indication “They are giving themselves that option.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Leave a Reply