Modesto Irrigation District board member lost gender bias suit, now owes thousands
A Modesto Irrigation District internal legal battle came to a close last week, leaving one of its own board members owing tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. The board member, Janice Keating, called the decision vindictive and retaliatory.
In May, District 2 representative Keating filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against MID and fellow board member Robert Frobose. In response, MID filed a so-called anti-SLAPP motion, resulting in Keating being charged with over $44,500 in attorney fees.
Anti-SLAPP motions are a way for defendants to compensate themselves for attorney fees associated with Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits. MID’s motion claimed Keating’s lawsuit “involve[d] speech or conduct in the scope of their protected legislative activities.”
The original lawsuit claimed Frobose intimidated Keating during an inspection of the La Grange Dam and berated her in closed session to approve a former MID lawyer.
“Director Frobose kept getting angrier and angrier and angrier that he couldn’t make me feel or vote the way he wanted me to,” said Keating, who is the first woman on the MID board in its 137-year history.
She said Frobose made comments about her that amounted to gender discrimination and harassment. The judge disagreed, siding with Frobose and MID.
Frobose denies all of the claims Keating made about him in the lawsuit, saying “none of it ever happened.”
Keating said by hitting her with such a large fee, MID could end up putting a lien on her house or siphoning funds directly from her bank account.
She works as a tax preparer, operating Janice’s Bookkeeping and Tax Service. She said her husband works in auto-body manufacturing. According to Keating, they aren’t rich.
“I honestly feel like this is vindictive and it’s retaliatory and completely unnecessary,” she said. “Everybody could have just walked away.”
Frobose said he reached out to his lawyer using the anti-SLAPP motion.“I called my personal attorney and said, ‘Do you do anti-SLAPPs?’” Frobose said. “And then the MID attorneys interviewed me and the decision was made to do it that way because it was the most expedited way to get rid of frivolous lawsuits.”
Keating’s lawyer pushed back on the nearly $54,000 in attorney fees originally requested by MID. The judge agreed to reduce the amount with the understanding that Keating would not pursue a hearing that was scheduled for Dec. 10.
“They would have come back and charged me for the additional time and fees that the hearing cost them, which would have wiped out the $9,300 discount,” Keating said.
In its operations and maintenance budget, MID has around $2.3 million for legal counsel, and another million for legal claims.
Frobose said Keating should have paid the original amount requested. “How does she reconcile that she sued and it cost the ratepayers money and she refuses to reimburse 100% of the ratepayers’ money?”
He said he is not recouping any of his attorney fees, so it is only MID that will benefit from the anti-SLAPP motion.
“The district looks forward to putting this unfortunate matter behind us and working collaboratively and constructively with all in serving our customers,” said Melissa Williams, a spokesperson for MID.
Keating said that MID spends millions of dollars a year in attorney fees and that to the district, it’s nothing. “This is nothing — but it’s something to me.”
