Court motion: ‘Jane Doe’ should come forward
Former Santa Cruz police officer seeks to remain anonymous in discrimination lawsuit
SANTA CRUZ >> A former Santa Cruz police officer suing her previous employer over workplace conditions is fighting to keep her anonymity in a Santa Cruz County Superior Court civil lawsuit.
The plaintiff, “Jane Doe” in her Dec. 11 suit, is said to be among four women at two parties in November and December 2017 fondled by former Santa Cruz Police Officer’s Association President David Gunter. Gunter, who was convicted of four counts of misdemeanor battery in a reduced plea April 26, 2019, had previously ceased working for the department May 11, 2018. He pleaded no contest to the charges and was sentenced to two years of probation and six months of house arrest.
The civil lawsuit, aimed at the police department and the City of Santa Cruz, alleges that authorities there failed to protect Jane Doe from gender discrimination, workplace retaliation and sexual harassment — all related to a human resources complaint and subsequent involvement in the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office criminal case against Gunter.
In a motion to strike the complaint, outside city legal counsel Michael Hsueh of San Jose-based Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP argued that “a plaintiff may sue under a fictitious name only when ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist.” The filing claims that while the plaintiff’s allegations are serious, her complaint gives no specifics regarding Gunter’s conduct. In the District Attorney’s Office charging records against Gunter, the former veteran officer is said to have unlawfully touched each woman’s “intimate part,” according to available court documents.
“These details are important: although a single unwanted touching (over clothes) and forcible rape are both sexual batteries, it does not necessarily follow that a plaintiff alleging unwanted touching could articulate the same privacy concerns as a rape victim,” Hsueh’s motion states.
“Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege, let alone identify, any risk of retaliation or risk of physical or mental injury resulting from disclosure of her identity,” the filing later states. “Indeed, she articulates that the sole reason for filing pseudonymously is because of ‘privacy.’”
According to attorney Lori Costanzo, allowing her client Jane Doe to retain anonymity “is essential.”
“Should Plaintiff be forced to (reveal) her identity, it would be yet another assault upon this young woman who has already suffered so much at the hands of a department she once trusted,” wrote Costanzo of the San Josebased Costanzo Law Firm, APC.
Constanzo later argued that the severity of the sexual assault and battery by a fellow police officer is evident by the fact that Gunter was convicted on four counts of misdemeanor battery.
“Because Plaintiff continues to live and work in the Santa Cruz community and has family and friends in the same community,” Costanzo argues. “Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm to her psyche, her reputation, her relationships, and potentially her employment should she be forced to reveal her identity in this action.”
The next court hearing in the case is scheduled for July 8 before Judge John Gallagher.