Council Candidate Disavows Discrimination Lawsuit
Written by Maria Gaura
SANTA CRUZ (October 2010) - Ron Pomerantz is a retired firefighter whose political niche in the race for Santa Cruz City Council is that of a liberal environmentalist who opposes development, supports social services and backs employee unions.
But 15 years ago, Pomerantz made headlines of a different kind as one of 22 white firefighters, and one latino, who filed a sensational reverse-discrimination lawsuit against the city of San Jose. In the lawsuit, the 23 plaintiffs alleged that then-San Jose Fire Chief Raymond Brooks had leaked the contents of a promotions exam to five black firefighters, thus discriminating against white firefighters who made up a sizeable majority of the test-takers, and of the department as a whole.
Today, Pomerantz disavows the lawsuit as racist, and claims that he never willingly participated in it, and never gave anyone permission to name him as a plaintiff in the first place. “I was never a part of that lawsuit,” Pomerantz said. “I was pushed hard to join this lawsuit saying that the test was unfair. I thought it smelled funny, and I signed documents saying I did not want to be a part of it. I did not want any part of a potential discrimination suit. That was what happened with me.”
However, the legal record only partially supports Pomerantz’ version of events. Pomerantz was listed as a plaintiff on the original complaint, and his name was included among the roster of plaintiffs throughout most of the six-month litigation and trial. Court documents show that Pomerantz was dismissed from the case, but a document that might pinpoint the date of his request for dismissal is missing from the court file.
And the two attorneys who represented the 23 fire captains in the lawsuit denied that Pomerantz had been included in the lawsuit against his will.
“We had to have consent from every one of the plaintiffs,” said attorney Larry Peterson. “We would not have included (Pomerantz) in the suit without a signed consent form in our files. You need consent to name somebody in a civil action like this. It wasn’t a class action.”
The firefighters’ lawsuit was covered extensively in the San Francisco Bay Area media, and was one of the most contentious events in the San Jose Fire Department’s decades-long struggle to integrate its ranks.
San Jose hired its first African American firefighter in 1971. By 1999, almost three decades later, 45 of the department’s 681 firefighters were African American.
The allegations in the lawsuit included claims that Chief Brooks had obtained an advance copy of a civil service exam for Battalion chief, and shared the purloined test with other black firefighters during a professional conference in Florida. The suit further alleged that Brooks had stacked the exam’s judging panel with four black examiners (out of a total of nine) with the intention that those examiners would favor the five African American candidates.
The primary evidence for these claims was the fact that all five of the black candidates who took the test passed, while just ten of 36 white candidates succeeded. In addition, the placement of four black examiners on the panel was seen as improper because “the boards were not representative of the racial breakdown of the community,” according to plaintiffs.
The lawsuit also touched on public employee pensions – which have become an issue in this year’s elections. For some of the plaintiffs who had failed the test, “it was their last chance to get promoted in order to retire as Battalion Chief, with commensurately higher retirement benefits,” the complaint noted.
Pomerantz’s pension of more than $124,000 per year has raised some eyebrows in this race, but had he retired as a Battalion Chief, his pension would have started out at approximately $130,000 per year, according to retired San Jose Fire Captain Russell Hayden. “And that’s with a guaranteed three percent per year raise, compounded,” which applies to both types of pension, Hayden said.
The reverse-discrimination lawsuit was eventually dismissed as lacking merit. Investigation showed that the test was written after the Florida conference took place, and was in any case re-written by an independent expert the night before it was administered. In addition, a review of the test scores revealed that the examiners, regardless of race, had all given similar scores to test takers.
But the judge’s decision did little to calm racial strife within the department.
Several of the plaintiff firefighters formed a group called the European-American Brotherhood, and later attempted to form an official employee’s organization called the European-American Firefighters Association. There is no evidence that Pomerantz was ever associated with either one of these groups. Shortly thereafter, the city of San Jose stopped recognizing official employee associations.
Pomerantz emphasizes that he was never a member of either organization, and said he denounced the groups as racist at the time they were formed.
Things got worse. Nine months after the case was dismissed, one of the lead plaintiffs was charged with murder after gunning down a black man in the parking lot of a Milpitas shopping mall – a case that drew national headlines. Fire Captain Robert Gremminger, also a Santa Cruz County resident, was eventually sentenced to nine years in prison for the killing.
After the shooting, Gremminger reportedly told investigators that he carried a loaded, unlicensed handgun in his car because he feared his African American colleagues. Many of the department's black firefighters were infuriated at the groundswell of support for Gremminger within the department, during his trial.
Chief Brooks was fired, and more than a year later, when the legal issues had finally been resolved, only one of the black firefighters who initially passed the Battalion Chief's test was promoted to Battalion Chief.
Pomerantz said those years were a rough time for morale within the San Jose Fire Department. “It was a hard time in the department. In the fire service you have to have trust in everybody, in your coworkers. I’m so glad we were able to put it behind us.”
Though he is proud of his firefighting career, and has mentioned it extensively in his campaign materials, Pomerantz considers the reverse-discrimination lawsuit irrelevant to his campaign for Santa Cruz City Council.
“It was 15 years ago, and I haven’t thought about it in years,” Pomerantz said. “I don’t see any bearing (on the campaign) whatsoever. It was my professional life, not that I separate my personal, professional and political lives, they are all tied together. But this took pace in San Jose - that was my fire world. No one else has brought this up during this campaign.”
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments
(8)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Roberta Friedman , October 27, 2010
This is the best piece of local journalism I have seen in quite a while. Kudos to Maria and the Wire for having the foresight and follow through that is giving the Sentinel a much deserved red face. I recall the discrimination case when it happened, and am shocked that it was 15 years ago, seems like much less time has passed. It is totally relevant to the discussion as this person is seeking public office and therefore his character is definitely an issue. His reaction to being questioned is also relevant and of interest. After attending the Coast Hotel hearings I received numerous emails from his west side group that was so anti-development it boggled my mind and I finally consigned all such missives to trash. So I would not vote for Pomerantz on both counts!
Votes: +2
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Mr. Siegel’s barrage of assertions is like being pelted with marshmallows. The individual is light and fluffy, but the volume is distracting, and they pile into sugary drifts about your knees. OK, Mr. Siegel, you clearly support Ron Pomerantz. You are entitled to your opinion, which I’m pretty sure is unshakeable. But the dots here are actually easy to connect. Ron was involved in a highly public lawsuit which was explicitly racially motivated. Ron has even described the suit as racist. But when asked to reflect on that lawsuit, he now insists that he was NEVER a part of it. This claim is contradicted by the official court record and his own attorneys. When asked to explain, he instead threatened to sue me. I don’t know Ron, but I’ll accept your word that he’s generally a really nice guy. This isn’t personal. But as a reporter, I think that this kind of behavior from a candidate is unacceptable, and newsworthy, and relevant to the campaign.
Votes: +4
report abuse
vote down
vote up
written by Shepherd Siegel , October 22, 2010
So I read with care the comments by Mr. Fujimoto, Maria, and orly laluz, and I am grateful for the civility of all three commenters, but I still disagree with the disingenuous tone of the article. First of all, I would presume that this reverse-discrimination lawsuit (and support of Measure H) are the only real complaints the loyal opposition has to Mr. Pomerantz’s candidacy and fitness for office. If there is something else that about him that any of you disagree with about the candidate, please disclose it. Otherwise, I would recommend that you vote for him. I can reassure you that there are few people in Santa Cruz, or for that matter in California, with more integrity, intelligence, and authenticity than Mr. Pomerantz. He works hard to suss out the truth regarding ANY issue, and then works even harder to form his own position, contemplatively and with a deeply cultivated sense of justice, listening fairly to multiple points of view in his community, and while diplomatic, he is never beholden to any special interest group of any persuasion.
On to the piece. I reread that as well. As a historical retelling of this lawsuit, it is credible journalism and a morality tale we can all learn from, as Gina Bliss so astutely comments. It’s when the reporter tries to place Pomerantz’s actions in the context of this history that the article goes astray. As Pomerantz states, there is no relevance to his current candidacy, and there wouldn’t be even if the lawsuit were in process now. To wit: We learn that he was originally listed as a plaintiff, but then he was dismissed as a plaintiff. That much would appear to be factual. But the reporter drags out statements from the lawyers (who have to cover their own behinds), arbitrarily questions the timing of the dismissal (as in, so what?), and then tries to somehow connect the pensions of the African-American firefighters with Pomerantz’s pension. I don’t get it. The connections are just not there. It’s kind of Fox Newsish to step to the precipice of phony allegation and let readers connect dots that don’t really connect. I get the uncomfortable feeling that if Pomerantz defended the lawsuit with the same argument that Gina Bliss gives, the article would attack him for that. If he distances himself from and disavows connection to or support for the lawsuit…well, now we start to see that a fella just can’t win with Maria Gaura. Lastly and perhaps most egregiously, how does a respectably written retelling of this lawsuit get the title Council Candidate Disavows Discrimination Lawsuit when it’s really not about him at all? As a historical reference and summary of said lawsuit, article good. As a legitimate attack on Pomerantz... its’ just not honest or fair. Maybe there is some way the Santa Cruz Wire can make things right and offer its public more sober and straightforward portraits of the candidates… like in the democracy with civil debate where we all want to live.
Votes: -3
On to the piece. I reread that as well. As a historical retelling of this lawsuit, it is credible journalism and a morality tale we can all learn from, as Gina Bliss so astutely comments. It’s when the reporter tries to place Pomerantz’s actions in the context of this history that the article goes astray. As Pomerantz states, there is no relevance to his current candidacy, and there wouldn’t be even if the lawsuit were in process now. To wit: We learn that he was originally listed as a plaintiff, but then he was dismissed as a plaintiff. That much would appear to be factual. But the reporter drags out statements from the lawyers (who have to cover their own behinds), arbitrarily questions the timing of the dismissal (as in, so what?), and then tries to somehow connect the pensions of the African-American firefighters with Pomerantz’s pension. I don’t get it. The connections are just not there. It’s kind of Fox Newsish to step to the precipice of phony allegation and let readers connect dots that don’t really connect. I get the uncomfortable feeling that if Pomerantz defended the lawsuit with the same argument that Gina Bliss gives, the article would attack him for that. If he distances himself from and disavows connection to or support for the lawsuit…well, now we start to see that a fella just can’t win with Maria Gaura. Lastly and perhaps most egregiously, how does a respectably written retelling of this lawsuit get the title Council Candidate Disavows Discrimination Lawsuit when it’s really not about him at all? As a historical reference and summary of said lawsuit, article good. As a legitimate attack on Pomerantz... its’ just not honest or fair. Maybe there is some way the Santa Cruz Wire can make things right and offer its public more sober and straightforward portraits of the candidates… like in the democracy with civil debate where we all want to live.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
written by Dennis A. Fujimoto , October 19, 2010
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Siegel's comment. This is one of the finest researched articles I have read in awhile. We could only hope for such journalism from the Sentinel or other publications. In speaking with a number of my friends we were amazed at the quality of this piece and it showed how lacking this type of journalism is locally. Thank you to the Santa Cruz Wire for producing this article.
Votes: +8
report abuse
vote down
vote up
While some people still consider the Piper lawsuit to have been a case of blowing the whistle on government malfeasance, Ron Pomerantz is not one of them. He now considers the lawsuit "racist" - his word - and claims he was never part of it, despite everything listed in the official court record.
And Mr. Siegel, here's the deal with running for public office in this country. When you become a public figure, and seek to make decisions for the community, your past actions are explicitly open for review and discussion. Questioning, reviewing and researching claims made by politicians and office-seekers are among the important things that journalists do. Slinging mud at the messenger is a poor substitute for substantive discussion of the issues. It might even be considered "uncivil harassment."
Votes: +8
And Mr. Siegel, here's the deal with running for public office in this country. When you become a public figure, and seek to make decisions for the community, your past actions are explicitly open for review and discussion. Questioning, reviewing and researching claims made by politicians and office-seekers are among the important things that journalists do. Slinging mud at the messenger is a poor substitute for substantive discussion of the issues. It might even be considered "uncivil harassment."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
written by orly laluz , October 18, 2010
I am not willing to vote for Ron primarily based on his misguided support for Measure H
Votes: -1
report abuse
vote down
vote up
written by Shepherd Siegel, Ph.D. , October 18, 2010
I’m disheartened that the level of discourse stoops so low in Council Candidate Disavows Discrimination Lawsuit. This story is incredibly short on facts, and the technique of rolling out some questionable information and then ‘going long’ on insinuation indicates a few things.
One, if these threadbare allegations are the best that the Santa Cruz Wire can come up with, it only substantiates the quality and clean background that Pomerantz will bring to his seat on the City Council. Voters can be assured at least that, if elected, there will be no dirty laundry…thank you Santa Cruz Wire for validating this candidate’s apparently spotless record. To that extent, the tactic employed in this journalism is pathetic.
Two, that the folks attacking Pomerantz are willing to resort to such unethical tactics—what has Pomerantz actually done that is negative and supported by facts in this article? Nothing that I can see—indicates that they are desperate, and whoever is stoking this uncivil harassment is no one I would want governing me.
Finally, to begrudge the pension of a civil servant who risked his life for 30 years fighting fires is downright un-American. That pension was not only earned by the lives and the property he saved, but by the risk of working in a profession with one of the highest probabilities of being killed or disabled in the line of duty. This is shameful.
I lived in Santa Cruz for 11 years, and one of the things that distinguished it from the rest of our contentious nation was that a level of civility, honesty, and fair play prevailed. Thus, it saddens me to see this kind of ‘dirty tricks’ journalism employed.
Votes: -7
One, if these threadbare allegations are the best that the Santa Cruz Wire can come up with, it only substantiates the quality and clean background that Pomerantz will bring to his seat on the City Council. Voters can be assured at least that, if elected, there will be no dirty laundry…thank you Santa Cruz Wire for validating this candidate’s apparently spotless record. To that extent, the tactic employed in this journalism is pathetic.
Two, that the folks attacking Pomerantz are willing to resort to such unethical tactics—what has Pomerantz actually done that is negative and supported by facts in this article? Nothing that I can see—indicates that they are desperate, and whoever is stoking this uncivil harassment is no one I would want governing me.
Finally, to begrudge the pension of a civil servant who risked his life for 30 years fighting fires is downright un-American. That pension was not only earned by the lives and the property he saved, but by the risk of working in a profession with one of the highest probabilities of being killed or disabled in the line of duty. This is shameful.
I lived in Santa Cruz for 11 years, and one of the things that distinguished it from the rest of our contentious nation was that a level of civility, honesty, and fair play prevailed. Thus, it saddens me to see this kind of ‘dirty tricks’ journalism employed.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
If it was true that promotion exam questions were secretly provided to a subset of the eligible candidates, then the issue was not about race or discrimination or reverse discrimination, but about the fairness/lack of fairness of using the exam results to select high scoring candidates for promotion. The candidates who objected, then, are not racists but are whistle-blowers about a dishonest process.
If it is not true that promotion exam questions were provided to a subset of the tested candidates, the firefighters' objection could be disproved and the case closed.
If this has any bearing on the present candidacy of Mr. Pomerantz for City Council, it would be to demonstrate that he and his colleagues risked their reputations in order to bear witness against an apparently unjust, secret, and illegal deviation from the established process for testing and promoting firefighters.
Votes: -7
If it is not true that promotion exam questions were provided to a subset of the tested candidates, the firefighters' objection could be disproved and the case closed.
If this has any bearing on the present candidacy of Mr. Pomerantz for City Council, it would be to demonstrate that he and his colleagues risked their reputations in order to bear witness against an apparently unjust, secret, and illegal deviation from the established process for testing and promoting firefighters.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
