Home › Education › Education: K-12
District spent $532,123 in lawsuit
Case is settled for $150,000, data show
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Education: K-12After spending $532,123 over two years to fight a wrongful termination lawsuit, the Oxnard Union High School District has settled the case for $150,000.
The outcome of the lawsuit, filed by former Assistant Principal Becky Romano, was revealed in a settlement agreement released Tuesday — shortly after The Star obtained copies of the district's attorney fees under a court order.
The public records detail how much the district has been billed by its lawyer, Dennis Walsh of Encino, for motions, telephone calls, letters, appearances, research and other matters. The case was tentatively settled in January and was recently finalized.
The district stressed that the litigation costs are covered by its insurer, Ventura County Schools Self-Funding Authority, which covers a number of public school districts.
The case was settled because the district anticipated more legal costs, said Roger Rice, the district's assistant superintendent of human resources.
"It was draining an extreme amount of time and energy from personnel and staff, and we needed to get the settlement done and put it behind us," he said.
Romano sued the school district in January 2006, claiming she was forced out of her job after suffering a work-related injury in 2003 that required a long convalescence. She alleged the district asserted she was physically unable to perform her duties after returning to work as an assistant principal at Rio Mesa High School in August 2004.
Romano now works as a high school principal in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
The two sides have criticized each other for dragging out the lawsuit.
Romano's attorney, Allen Ball, approached The Star last year with an allegation that Walsh was refusing to settle in order to drive up his fees, which he described as an offensive waste of tax dollars.
District officials countered that Ball was using the media to embarrass the district into settling.
The Star attempted to do its own investigation into the fees but was blocked when the district refused to provide the billing invoices.
Jack Parham, another district lawyer, said at the time that the legal fees were not public information.
The Star's lawyers disagreed and took the matter to court. On Feb. 5, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry Walsh ordered the district to release the records. The district complied Tuesday.
Rice said the district previously did not have the bills to give The Star because insurance covered the litigation, and the district wasn't keeping track of the records.
District Trustee Dick Jaquez said he was happy with the settlement, but blamed Ball for continuing to litigate and increasing costs.
"I thought that was tragic," he said.
Asked if the district would monitor future bills covered by insurance, Jaquez said: "I think there's always a reason to keep tabs on it and be aware of what's being spent. We'll look into it, of course."
Board President Irene Pinkard did not return a call for this report.
Ball said his client initially was willing to settle for $75,000. But district officials say that is not entirely true.
"If we would have been able to settle it for 75, we would have settled it for 75," Rice said, adding that the $75,000 offer was extended only to certain defendants and wouldn't have ended the entire case.
"The district has a responsibility to protect our assets and not cave into unreasonable demands," Rice said.
Ball continued to blame the district for frivolous spending in a letter Tuesday: "Becky made 16 written offers to the school district in correspondence and written court documents to mediate or arbitrate this matter, noting that continued litigation constituted a misuse of public funds."
Posted by smithjc on February 27, 2008 at 3:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
anytime irene pinkard is involved you can be sure that an employee is being wronged.
Posted by rjeremy on February 27, 2008 at 5:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ding....Ding.....Ding.... and the winner is....the lawyers laughing all the way to the bank. I hope you guys are very proud of your profession.
Posted by luv2sail on February 27, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The district has a responsibility to protect our assets and not cave into unreasonable demands," Rice said.
A stellar performance by all involved for sure. Once again, as we have seen on all levels, it is a case of money that is not earned by the people spending it. In the real world, suits are settled out of common sense and predictable expense to pursue them.
It seems that the district finds some justification in the fact that it will be covered by insurance.
It is rare that an insurance companies loses, so I would predict that higher premiums are on their way.
Posted by sagama on February 27, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally, I would have liked this case to have proceeded to trail. Our legal system makes the cost of litigation the driving force for any settlement. In any case, if plaintiff is awarded any sum of money, no matter how minimal, the attorney representing plaintiff can and would be awarded most if not all of their attorney fees. While $150,000.00 seems like a lot of money, it would have cost at least that much to go to trial. Allan Ball scheduled over 27 depositions in this matter compared to defense attorney Mr. Walsh scheduling 2. Mr. Ball was claiming nearly $400,000.00 in attorney fees. This seettlement negates him from recovering any of those fees. That is reason enough to celebrate! This settlement sends a message to the Allan Balls of the world that OUHSD will not be intimadated merely because of the threat of costly litigation. One final note, the fact that OUHSD obtained a judgement against plaintiff for $35,000.00 for filing a frivolous lawsuit speaks volumes of the merits of this case.
Posted by joeschmo on February 27, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How do you determine if a lawyer is lying? Watch the face carefully...if the lips move there has been a lie!
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on February 27, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lawyers again win the Billable Hours Jackpot.
Public sector management today reminds me of Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged."
Where is John Galt?
Posted by Reenee on February 27, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems that "sagama" is very well informed about the details of this case... (Makes you wonder if he took part of this lawsuit?) Maybe you can tell the public if other than wrongful termination, were there any other allegations against the District and/or their employees?
Posted by UdontKnowMe on February 27, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Romano sued the school district in January 2006, claiming she was forced out of her job after suffering a work-related injury in 2003 that required a long convalescence. She alleged the district asserted she was physically unable to perform her duties after returning to work as an assistant principal at Rio Mesa High School in August 2004."
What a waste of money by the OUHSD. What a shame, obviously this woman was still able to perform beyond her duties, she is now a high school principal in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
Posted by Reenee on February 27, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It sounds like "SAGAMA" is sour and angry about something. Makes you wonder if he was PERSONALLY involved in this case or if he is just a concerned Ventura County resident like everyone else????
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 9 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.