EDITOR’S NOTE: Corrects that the jury in former Port Angeles Finance Director Yvonne Ziomkowski’s Clallam County Superior Court civil trial voted 11-1 that her gender was a motivating factor in her termination, according to Seattle attorney Shannon Ragonesi and Port Angeles lawyer Karen Unger.
PORT ANGELES — The attorney who represented the city of Port Angeles in former Finance Director Yvonne Ziomkowski’s successful gender discrimination lawsuit has asked for a new trial or a lower award.
Seattle attorney Shannon Ragonesi asked Superior Court Judge Erik Rohrer to hold a new civil trial or reduce the jury’s $1.5 million award in an April 29 court filing, saying the jury acted improperly in arriving at its April 8 verdict.
In return, Port Angeles lawyer Karen Unger, who represented Ziomkowski, wants Ragonesi to be sanctioned, according to court papers Unger filed last week.
Jurors deliberated
The eight-woman, four-man jury deliberated for two hours before awarding Ziomkowski, who was 62 at the time of the verdict, noneconomic damages of $1.5 million and $113,471 in economic damages — considered as lost earnings — for a total of more than $1.6 million.
Ragonesi is asking for a reduction in the noneconomic damages.
The jury found in Ziomkowski’s favor 11-1 that she was subjected to harassment because of her gender while employed by the city and 11-1 that her gender was a motivating factor in the city’s decision to fire her in 2012, when then-City Manager Kent Myers said she had violated the city’s general leave cash-out policy.
Court filings entered into the trial record since April 29 in the wake of Ragonesi’s motion provide a rare glimpse into the workings of a jury as seen through the eyes of a juror — deliberations that Unger said are “sacrosanct.”
“The city had nothing,” Unger said Friday during a court hearing on the sanctions that was continued to 1:30 p.m. this coming Friday.
“They had the declaration of a disgruntled one out of 12 jurors, which is not jury misconduct.”
Sanctions “may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or legal memorandum, including a reasonable attorney fee,” according to state Court Rules.
Juror’s written statement
In juror Richard Deane’s written statement he said he disagreed with the jury’s award.
He said it was based in part on Ziomkowski’s eye condition, which she testified has made her unable to drive, and her inability to work because of the diagnosis.
Deane also said the $1.5 million verdict on noneconomic damages was “directly based” on the jurors’ conclusion that she would have been able to do consulting work after she retired.
“They concluded that she must have lost a lot of money because of this,” Deane said.
Improper argument
Ragonesi said in her April 29 declaration in support of a new trial that Unger admitted that a doctor testified that Ziomkowski’s eye condition “was not caused by the actions of the city” yet during the trial “improperly implied and argued that it was.”
Ragonesi also said her motion to exclude evidence of Ziomkowski’s intent to have a consulting business after she retired was consistent with case law barring “speculative evidence” without having an expert witness support the claim.
Yet Rohrer permitted Ziomkowski to testify that she had intended to do consulting and suffered damages because of her termination, Ragonesi said.
Unger, in her motion for sanctions filed Monday, claimed Ragonesi “has played fast and loose with the facts throughout this case,” and said the doctor said Ziomkowski’s eye condition was exacerbated by stress.
The city “has filed a pleading that has no basis in law and is meant to delay, harass and impede the administration of justice,” Unger said.
“Not only did the defendant fail to raise the issue of juror misconduct in its original motion [for a new trial], the declaration of Richard Deane, filed in support of this improper pleading, discusses the workings of the jury itself, which is not something that a court is to consider, or raises issues of jury misconduct.”
The issues Deane raises “are clearly within the province of a deliberating jury and does not describe anything close to juror misconduct,” Unger added.
“The free, frank and secret deliberation upon which a verdict is based is held sacrosanct,” she said — unless jurors’ affidavits show misconduct and it is shown that the misconduct affects the verdict.
Deane also said a juror commented that the city would not have to pay the amount of damages awarded by the jury.
“This is further undeniable evidence that the $1.5 million award of noneconomic damages is the direct result of passion, prejudice and pure speculation on the part of the jury,” Ragonesi said.
The damages are covered under the city’s policy with the Washington Cities Insurance Authority, which decided to seek a new trial and under which Ragonesi was hired to defend the city.
Sibling jurors
“Mr. Deane also shockingly reveals that two of the jurors were actually brother and sister yet they kept this information from the court and the parties during this trial,” Ragonesi said.
“The city was unaware that two of the jurors were closely related, and would have conducted voir dire of the jurors regarding their relationship and ability to fairly deliberate without influence if it had known of the relationship.”
Responded Unger: “Not only has the defendant addressed issues not raised in its original motion, it has filed a pleading that has no basis in law, and is meant to delay, harass and impede the administration of justice.”
Ziomkowski should be reimbursed, Unger concludes, “for the attorney fees she incurred in having to respond to both a frivolous filing and to file this motion for [Court Rules] 11 relief.”
________
Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 55650, or at pgottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
