In A New Lawsuit, Senior Prosecutor Says Spitzer Engaged In “Purposeful and Intentional Retaliation” While “Lionizing” An Alleged Sexual Harasser and “Gas Lighting” Victims.
For the past three years, Tracy Miller served as a senior assistant district attorney, a high-ranking position within the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, and the only female prosecutor in that role. According to a new employment discrimination lawsuit, after 29 years of service to the people of Orange County, District Attorney Todd Spitzer “forced her from that position by purposeful and intentional retaliation and by creating a hostile work environment.”
Here is the full filing:
Inside of the OCDA, Ms. Miller is the main supervisor who helped a woman subjected to sexual harassment from Gary LaGalbo, the best man at Spitzer’s wedding and a person who Spitzer twice promoted. Women in the office called LoGalbo “Scary Gary”, an appropriate nickname given the allegations rendered against him. For example, one female prosecutor recounted in an employment discrimination lawsuit against the county that while she bent over to plug in a phone charger, LoGalbo pointed at her rear-end, snapped a picture with his cell phone, and said out-loud, “This one is for the spank bank. I’ll use it later.” In a separate incident, after the DA’s office installed a new room for mothers to nurse their children, LoGalbo looked over at a female prosecutor and in front of a number of people allegedly said, “Hey, you know what you and I should do? We should go upstairs, lock the door and bang one out in the mommy milk room.”
The lawsuit alleges, however, that rather than reward Ms. Miller for her service, she was retaliated against for “refusing to allow Spitzer to lionize the predator, gas-light, and further savage the reputation of the victims.” Miller also reported to the OCDA’s Human Resources Director that the “workplace was becoming hostile and unsafe”, because Spitzer was “ignoring the sexual harassment” committed by Mr. LaGalbo, a man who bragged to anyone in the office who would list that he was Spitzer’s “best friend.” For example, Miller alleges in the lawsuit that with the District Attorney present in the room, Spitzer’s second-in-command said “repeatedly” that “Gary LoGalbo did not have real victims.”
Spitzer admitted to the auditor that he did call the women, but he claimed “I don’t know what I said” but also that he would have said that his personal relationship with LoGalbo would not have impacted his decision-making and if he had known that LoGalbo was a pervert in the office, he would “have been put on admin[istrative] leave or been out of here in two seconds.”
Spitzer also allegedly protected LoGalbo from these allegations, and floated the idea of retaliating against the victims who made them. The supervisor of one of the women who filed a complaint against LoGalbo told an independent auditor that Spitzer told her to “write up” the woman for a negative performance evaluation. Both that supervisor and another prosecutor in Spitzer’s office sent the evaluation over to Spitzer with a Post-it note making clear that they “both disagree[d]” with that decision.
Spitzer offered a different version of events, but the independent auditor found Spitzer’s version “not credible”. Spitzer told OC Watch that “the independent investigation flatly rejected any allegation of retaliation by me or any of my executive managers” and “cleared everyone of any wrongdoing with the exception of Mr. LoGalbo[.]”
Spitzer’s statement is technically correct. The independent audit found the retaliation claim related to this incident to be “unsubstantiated.” But it’s a little more complicated than that.
The auditor could not substantiate the claim not because she believed Spitzer’s version of events (indeed, she found them “not credible”), but because establishing the claim requires a “formal adverse employment action”. Spitzer said he wanted the negative evaluation, but he did not “order” it on the spot. Instead, he left the door open for further discussion. Ultimately, after the pushback from others in senior leadership within the office, Spitzer approved a positive evaluation. In other words, the auditor believed that Spitzer intended for the woman to receive a negative evaluation and that he made the request to the woman’s supervisor, but because he was talked-out of his bad behavior before making a final decision about it, no “formal adverse employment action” occurred.
“Spitzer, in retaliation for this victim reporting sexual harassment, directed Miller’s subordinate to have to this new sexual harassment victim “written-up’ for being dishonest. On or about February 1, 2021, Miller reported Spitzer’s retaliatory directive to write-up the victim to HR Director Pettit.
The lawsuit recounts some of the earlier reported instances of harassment of a female prosecutor under the supervision of Ms. Miller. For example, LoGalbo allegedly told one female prosecutor, “If you have babies, it better be because I’m making them with you.” Worse, according to the lawsuit, “LoGalbo would tell the female [prosecutor] that he and Spitzer were best friends, and LoGalbo was the best man at Spitzer’s wedding.” After Miller approached human resources to report that a third female prosecutor had been experienced sexual harassment at the hands of Gary LoGalbo, the lawsuit alleges that Spitzer’s second in command “presented a plan to significantly diminish Miller’s material responsibilities,” including “taking away many of the specialty units Miller supervised.”
Miller also alleges that Mr. Spitzer engaged in abusive conduct towards her. For example, during an executive meeting which included Ms. Miller’s peers and a number of the prosecutors whom she supervised within the office, Spitzer yelled at her “why are you speaking? Be quiet!” And “you shut up.” And then in a statement that the lawsuit argues illustrates Spitzer’s retaliatory purpose, said, “you take your little notes about me that end up in reports.”
This is a developing story and will be updated…