A former employee and the city of Solvang have settled a wrongful-termination lawsuit, avoiding a trial and leading to a $950,000 payout.

The former city clerk, Lisa Martin, filed the lawsuit in March 2021, alleging that her whistleblower complaints about the then-city manager and then-city attorney led to retaliation, harassment and, ultimately, her termination.

Martin, who had served as city clerk since her August 2015 promotion, took medical leave because of stress in 2019, and was placed on administrative leave when she attempted to return to her job the same month, according to the complaint filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court by her attorney, David Secrest.

The city claimed Martin’s termination in March 2020 with other employees was due to COVID-19, and that her position of city clerk was “non-essential,” although they filled the job.

Martin’s lawsuit said the city’s stance was false and “a deliberate concoction of plausible legal rationale designed to punish plaintiff, and to retaliate against her, for her gender and protected activity.” 

The accusations focus on then-city manager Xenia Bradford, who left last fall, and Chip Wullbrandt, formerly the contract city attorney and a partner at the Santa Barbara-based firm of Price, Postel & Parma.

He resign from Solvang in December 2020.

Wullbrandt “blatantly disregarded” Solvang Municipal Code deadlines for submitting items for meeting agendas, yelling at Martin over the issue, and later seeming to apologize by giving her a bottle of chardonnay, the complaint stated.

“Wullbrandt’s verbal harassment against plaintiff continued, culminating in a significant verbal attack upon plaintiff on October 4, 2019, witnessed by several co-workers,” the legal documents contend, adding that he “aggressively and loudly yelled” at Martin.

“When plaintiff asked Wullbrandt to stop yelling, Wullbrandt stepped forward aggressively, pointed his finger at plaintiff, and blocked her ability to move away from Wullbrandt. Plaintiff felt justifiably, physically threatened by Wullbrandt.”

Days later, a Solvang employee represented by the union filed a formal grievance against the city reporting that Wullbrandt’s conduct toward plaintiff was “unprofessional” and contending he interrogated Martin “with a loud and derogatory demeanor.” 

The city’s attorney, Armineh Megrabyan, for the lawsuit filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge James Rigali rejected last fall.

“These facts demonstrate Martin was a member of a protected class; was qualified for the position or was performing competently in the position she held; and she suffered an adverse employment action during her employ with city, which consisted of being placed on involuntary leave, the failure to properly investigate her complaints of harassment and retaliation, and termination,” the judge said in rejecting the city’s motion for summary judgement.

Martin also submitted evidence that when male employees filed complaints about improper work conduct, they weren’t place on administrative leave.

“The court finds the evidence set forth above is sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact whether Wullbrandt’s hostility to Martin was motivated by her gender,” the court ruling said.

During an independent review of Martin’s allegation, the city-hired investigator conducted interviews in November and December 2019, but didn’t produce a report until months later. 

“Even assuming that commencement of an investigation an entire month after Martin was placed on involuntary administrative leave was ‘prompt,’ the conclusion certainly was not,” the court ruled, noting the last witness interview occurred Dec. 5, 2019, but the report is dated March 2020.

“No evidence has been presented why the report took three months to come to a conclusion.”

Under the terms of the settlement, also approved by the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, Martin received $570,000 while her attorney received $380,000, according to a document received by Noozhawk.

“Notwithstanding the scope of the agreement, the settlement payment will be characterized as compensation for the injuries claimed as described in the complaint filed by plaintiff …, and the parties agree to bear their own tax consequences as a result of said characterization,” the agreement said.

The agreement also says the defendants “wish to buy their peace, with no admission of liability or fault on behalf of the settling defendants.”

The trial in Rigali’s courtroom was expected to start last July, and then last December, before being rescheduled for 2023. 

In January, Secrest filed a document that the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement, and he filed a request to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, which means it can’t be refiled.

The hiring of Wullbrandt and Bradford occurred under a prior City Council, although current member Robert Clarke was part of the panel at the time.