Port of San Diego Loses Its Mind

Ill-founded investigation echoes previous one used to demote popular community activist board member.

In a followup to the unprecedented censure of port commissioner Sandy Naranjo last year, the Port of San Diego has launched a bizarre workplace investigation targeting Naranjo’s attorney, Cory Briggs, for alleged “workplace harassment.”

There’s just one problem: Briggs doesn’t work for the port, the alleged “harassment” didn’t take place in the port’s workplace, and thus the port has no jurisdiction to pursue such an investigation. Which is why Briggs is suing the port in federal court for violation of his civil rights.

“The PORT has no regulatory or other jurisdiction over PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF has never been an employee, independent contractor, or other agent of the PORT. The PORT has no legal authority to ‘investigate’ PLAINTIFF. There is no lawful basis for the PORT to ‘investigate’ PLAINTIFF,” Brigg’s lawsuit states.

The port’s board censured Naranjo on Oct.10, and stripped her of all her offices and power. She was due to become president of the board this year, according to long-standing custom. The action was taken on the basis of a then-secret report of a similarly dubious human-resources investigation launched against Naranjo after she raised questions about port attorney Tom Russell (formerly at the Port of LA) involving possible conflicts of interest tied to former Port of LA board chair Nick Tonsich.

At that meeting, Briggs read a letter from Naranjo’s ex-husband, Andrew McKercher,.recalling two instances in which he claimed that Russell’s assistant, Rebecca Harrington, told him that she “hates Sandy” and that “Sandy is going down.” Reading that letter from McKercher (who also doesn’t work for the port) and a subsequent comment to the press (also not in the port’s workplace) was the sole basis of the so-called “workplace investigation.”

In the suit, Brigg’s alleges, the decision to investigate him “was intended to retaliate against

PLAINTIFF by, among other things, (i) requiring him to divert his attention from compensable work for his clients in order to participate in the ‘investigation,’ (ii) forcing him to retain legal counsel to defend himself in the ‘investigation,’ (iii) bringing him into disrepute in the community, and (iv) providing a subterfuge for taking other future punitive measures against PLAINTIFF – all of which have serve[d] to chill PLAINTIFF’s exercise of his federal and state constitutional and other civil rights.”

The Port of San Diego is doubling down. “The port has a legal obligation to investigate personnel matters and will proceed as required.” Port of San Diego Chair Frank Urtasun said in a statement, oblivious to the basic facts cited above. “The port will assertively defend its position through the court process,” he said.

But Briggs is undeterred. “Bullying and intimidation by the government is no better than when it’s done by private individuals. It’s actually much worse — because it violates the First Amendment,” he told Random Lengths.