Former Sonoma County court executive disputes ruling against lawsuit alleging wrongful firing

A federal judge ruled last month Sonoma County’s former courthouse administrator failed to provide evidence of racial discrimination and retaliation in a lawsuit over her 2022 firing.

In her response filed Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Arlene Junior contends Judge William Orrick erred in his decision and her matter should still go before a jury.

The dispute is the latest development in Junior’s federal lawsuit filed in November 2022. It names Sonoma County Presiding Judge Shelly Averill and the Sonoma County Superior Court, a state agency.

Orrick’s June 19 summary judgment found no evidence Averill’s decision to terminate Junior had anything to do with her being Black.

“Junior failed (to) establish a prima facie case of discrimination by Averill, the responsible decision maker in Junior’s termination, or for pretext given Averill’s objectively reasonable reliance on outside reports,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

In response, Junior’s attorney, Dan Siegel, wrote her job performance was commendable and there was no reason to terminate her.

A jury, he said, could “reasonably conclude” allegations of misconduct on her part could be disbelieved given her work performance.

“There is ample evidence from which a jury could infer prejudice by Judge Averill,” Siegel wrote in the motion to amend Orrick’s ruling. “As the new presiding judge of four months, Averill terminated a high performing CEO who was well-regarded by the two previous presiding judges who had supervised Junior for over four years.“

Federal court records do not show when Junior’s argument will be heard.

In Sonoma County, the court administrative officer is tasked with overseeing the administration of nonjudicial operations at the court, including personnel, budget, calendar, jury system and public relations.

Junior managed 190 court employees and oversaw an annual budget of $29 million.

One of the few Black government executives in Sonoma County, Junior contends she faced workplace discrimination throughout her time as head of the local courthouse.

She specifically argues Margaret Smith, a former criminal division director, undermined her, refused to work for a Black supervisor and wanted her job.

Junior alleges she endured microaggressions since she was hired and her firing violated her rights under the First Amendment, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Labor Code and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But according to the Superior Court’s motion for summary judgment, which was filed in March, Junior’s termination was justified after a series of internal investigations and other behavior did not end in her favor.

In his conclusion, Orrick wrote Junior failed to show Averill’s reliance on the investigations and justification for terminating her were “unworthy of credence.”

“She does not point to any evidence that shows Averill was more likely than not motivated by racial animus,” the judge wrote.

Junior denied allegations referenced in the internal investigations, including that she retaliated against Smith by denying her a merit increase after the latter filed a complaint against Junior.

She maintained it would have been inappropriate for her to handle Smith’s job performance on the heels of the complaint being filed.

“Again, a jury hearing this evidence would be justified in concluding that the accusation regarding Junior’s alleged pattern of behavior was false,” Siegel wrote in his motion.

You can reach Staff Writer Colin Atagi at colin.atagi@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @colin_atagi