775-353-5555
431 Prater Way Sparks, NV United States
Instagram link
Twitter link
EN 
Sparks City Council Meeting 2/25/2013 2:00:00 PM
Monday, February 25, 2013 2:00 PMSparks Council Chambers, 745 4th Street, Sparks, NV
General Business: 6.6
Title: Consideration and possible approval of Settlement of: Randolph v. City of Sparks.
Petitioner/Presenter: Shaun Carey/Shaun Carey
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the settlement of an age discrimination claim brought by former Sr. Asst. City Attorney Timothy Randolph in the total amount of $150,000.00
Financial Impact: $150,000.00
Total Costs: $150,000.00
Total Costs: $150,000.00|
Fund: Municipal Self-Insurance Account: 603242 Program: Legal in Muni Ins Fund (050519) Amount: $150,000.00 Budget Status: Budget Exists |
Business Impact (Per NRS 237):
A Business Impact Statement is not required because this is not a rule.
A Business Impact Statement is not required because this is not a rule.
Agenda Item Brief: Approval of the final resolution of a lawsuit filed against the City of Sparks by former Sr. Assistant City Attorney Timothy Randolph.
Background: Mr. Randolph filed a lawsuit against the City of Sparks for age discrimination in connection with his termination in December 2008. He alleged that his termination (which was subsequently characterized as a lay-off) was in retaliation for asserting that he would sue the City for age discrimination if he were selected for lay off out of order. The EEOC found that Mr. Randolph’s threat to sue the City constituted a protected activity and thus his termination was a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s (ADEA) anti-retaliation provisions. The matter proceeded to federal court, where an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) was conducted by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid. Judge McQuaid concurred with the EEOC that Mr. Randolph’s threat to sue for age discrimination could be construed by a jury as protected activity, which would support a claim for retaliation under the ADEA. After negotiations between the parties, the parties agreed to a settlement of $150,000.00, inclusive of costs and fees, contingent upon approval by the City Council. The City Council is being asked to authorize the expenditure as it exceeds the City Manager’s settlement authority.
Analysis: The findings of the EEOC and the analysis of a long-time federal court judge indicate that there is a significant risk of an adverse jury finding against the City of Sparks. The cost of litigating the issue of whether Mr. Randolph’s comment constitutes retaliation under the ADEA in a summary judgment would be considerable given the amount of discovery that must occur before such a motion is made. Should that motion be denied, the City would incur additional sums in defense costs to participate in a jury trial. In the event the jury finds in favor of the plaintiff in any amount, the City would be required to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the plaintiff, which would likely be considerably higher than the defense fees and costs. The $150,000.00 settlement would be considerably less than the potential exposure should the jury find in favor of the plaintiff.
Alternatives: The City Council may accept or reject the payment of the settlement proceeds based upon information it receives from defense counsel during the attorney-client session.
Recommended Motion: Based upon the information provided by defense counsel, move to approve the settlement with Timothy Randolph for a total payment of $150,000.00, in exchange for a full and final release of all claims arising from his employment with the City and dismissal of the federal lawsuit.
