BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
The city of Palo Alto will spend $320,000 defending itself against a lawsuit from six police officers who sued over a Black Lives Matter mural in front of City Hall that contained a painting of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur.
Judge Evette Pennypacker dismissed the suit on July 7, saying the mural wasn’t directed at the police officers and didn’t interfere with their work.
“Some (officers) declare they were uncomfortable and that feeling upset caused them not to be able to work, but these conclusory statements are a far cry from the type of work interruption … as a result of persistent, pervasive racial and sexual harassment,” Pennypacker said in her decision, canceling a trial that had been scheduled to start today.
Cops could appeal dismissal
However, the case may not be over. The police officers could appeal the dismissal of the case.
The mural controversy goes back to the summer of 2020 after the death of George Floyd, when council voted to commission a mural on Hamilton Avenue that was 245 feet long and 17 feet tall, removed in November 2020.
In the letter “E,” an artist painted Assata Shakur, who was pulled over by New Jersey state troopers on May 2, 1973, resulting in a shootout that left one officer dead.
Six officers — Eric Figueroa, Michael Foley, Robert Parham, Julie Tannock, David Ferreira and Chris Moore — sued the city in June 2021. They were represented by Douglas Davis Winter, who specializes in employment-related lawsuits.
“When an employer advocates for an individual or entity that is responsible for the murder of or violence toward a class of people, that conduct is clearly harassing,” Winter argued.
City’s defenses
Suzanne Solomon, representing the city, first argued that police officers are not a protected class under the state’s fair employment laws. A protected class is a category by which people are qualified for special protection under the law, including age, race, disability, gender and sexual orientation.
In response, officers said they were harassed based on their race as “non-African Americans.”
So Solomon filed a second response, saying officers are relying on their subjective feelings about the mural, rather than a tangible effect on their employment. Their objections to the mural “are the epitome of minor or trivial,” she wrote.
Council on Aug. 5 will consider extending its contract with Solomon’s law firm, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, until the end of the year. The contract will go from $170,000 to $320,000, City Attorney Molly Stump said.
“Litigation defense is continuing in this matter,” Stump wrote.
Solomon has prepared a proposed judgment for Pennypacker to sign, court records show. The officers would have 180 days from when the judgement to file a “notice of appeal.”
The contract is on council’s consent calendar, meaning it can be approved along with four other items on a single vote without discussion.
Why is the city attorney not doing the defending is the city Attorney not qualified to handle cases and outsources everything? Next time just remove something that is offensive And make sure that your community artist are actually residence not from outside the city.
City council created this controversy by pandering to the BLM/defund the police crowd, which never represented the majority in Palo Alto. Council showed its bias when they let these far left Progressive agitators paint this mural on a city street. If the Republican Party wanted a street banner, they would have been rejected. And that would have been the right call. Council members should be forced to settle this case with their own personal funds. If they can’t afford it, they need to take out a second mortgage on their homes. They shouldn’t hand the bill to the taxpayer because the taxpayer didn’t make the stupid choice of allowing this mural in a city street.
Vote against all council incumbents.
A picture does not interfere with their work. Cops should have a thicker skin than this. Why does the city allow them to waste everyone’s time and money over a dumb picture? They should grow up or else be dismissed from their work, which they are obviously unqualified for.