Tempe lawyer Kimberly Eckert filed a lawsuit on April 3 in Yavapai County Superior Court on behalf of Steve Gesell, the Cottonwood police chief fired in September, against the city of Cottonwood; Mayor Tim Elinski; Deputy City Manager Jesus “Rudy” Rodriguez, who was on multiple occasions acting city manager; City Manager Scotty Douglass; City Attorney Jennifer Winkler; Human Resources Director Amanda Wilber; and Councilwoman Helaine Kurot. Winkler and Douglass are no longer city employees.
Gesell claims wrongful termination, retaliation, tampering with public records, violation of open meeting laws, defamation and a civil rights violation.
Wrongful Termination, Retaliation
The lawsuit claims Elinski and Rodriguez “attempted to leverage an Arizona Civil Rights Division discrimination report in order to disparage and harm the Cottonwood Police Department and its then chief of police, plaintiff Stephen Gesell, in part by manipulating the City Council.”
Dever-Conciliation-AgreementThe Arizona Attorney General’s Office report, which is a public document issued by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, determined that the Cottonwood Police Department under Gesell’s leadership had discriminated against a female police officer on the basis of her sex and disability. Under the terms of the conciliation agreement, the officer was subsequently promoted to detective, could not be demoted for two years and was given $67,142.92 in compensation as a result of the discrimination.
In the lawsuit, Gesell stated he was invited to speak before a City Council executive session on May 9 about the ACRD report.
The lawsuit provides no evidence Gesell that was invited into the executive session. In an email to Gesell on May 9, Rodriguez stated prior to the meeting, “Chief, if you planned to attend, there will be no need at the executive session.”
5-9-23-R-Rodriguez-EM-to-S-GesellIn a letter from Rodriguez to Wilber dated May 10, Rodriguez stated that after the council meeting, Gesell confronted him and yelled, “This is a travesty,” and “This is not over, Rudy.”
Gesell later texted Rodriguez, “I was beyond frustrated last night with the sequence of events. I owe you an apology for my tone,” adding that the Pierce Coleman law firm “provided a logical rational[e] of an open meetings violation if was allowed to answer questions. Totally made sense but was not conveyed prior to the meeting.”
The text message is not mentioned in the lawsuit.
Gesell did not respond to a question on April 25 as to why it was omitted from the suit.
Rodriguez placed Gesell on administrative leave on May 11. Elinski stated to council members in an email on May 11, which is also a public record, that he spoke with Rodriguez “and I encouraged him to, at a minimum, let the chief go home on administrative leave and cool off and we could address the situation when Scotty [Douglass] comes on board.”
Gesell-S-Administrative-LeaveGesell’s lawsuit claims that Elinski “demanded” Rodriguez fire Gesell, but provides no evidence of such a statement.
The lawsuit claims Rodriguez “may not have had the authority” to put Gesell on leave and repeatedly refers to Rodriguez as “portraying himself as the interim city manager of Cottonwood” and “purported interim city manager.”
“Interim city manager” is not an official title or office in the Cottonwood City Code. Under City Code 2.20.040, the deputy city manager becomes “acting city manager” due to an extended absence or vacancy. When then-City Manager Ron Corbin announced his pending resignation in August 2022, he advised council that Rodriguez would be filling in until a permanent city manager was hired.
Rodriguez officially became “acting city manager” on Nov. 15, 2022, and was officially noted as such in council agendas and city documents until Douglass began work in May 2023.
The lawsuit goes into depth about the ACRD claim and settlement, claiming that the settlement was the grounds for Gesell’s firing. The suit also claims the city violated a state statute that requires a police officer be given written notice of an investigation.
A “Notice of Investigation” was provided to Gesell on May 10 and the alleged violations of the employee manual and CPD policy manual included in that notice, which Douglass repeated verbatim in his Sept. 7 termination letter, were specifically “discourtesy to another employee or member of the public,” “insubordination,” “any act error or omission detrimental to the mission of the city,” “any action, on or off the job, that brings discredit to the city” and five related violations of the CPD policy manual.
Notice-of-Intent-to-InvestigateThe Sept. 7 termination letter then listed four violations included in the ACRD Reasonable Cause Determination against the female officer.
Notice-of-Intent-to-Terminate-EmploymentViolation of Open Meeting Laws
The lawsuit quotes statements allegedly made during the May 9 City Council executive session, which are closed to the public, and confidential meetings between council and the city’s legal counsel.
Gesell obtained these recordings through an administrative error made by Winkler. Upon being notified in an email on July 20, when still a city employee, that he was in possession of privileged materials and that he was required to destroy any copies he had of those materials, Gesell confirmed that he had done so. He also stated that he had shared the file with others.
Eckert’s filing did not provide a transcript or an audio file of the executive session.
Tampering with Public Records
The lawsuit claims Douglass provided Gesell’s complaint to the City Council but omitted pages related to an alleged employee complaint against Winkler.
Defamation
The lawsuit alleges that Kurot told another councilwoman that Gesell had “threatened” Rodriguez and “crossed a line.” The lawsuit claims that Kurot’s use of the word “threatening” is the presumption of a criminal act, and is defamation per se.
Civil Rights Violation
The lawsuit alleges several of the above issues constitute a collective violation of Gesell’s civil rights.
For relief, the lawsuit requests “special and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial,” punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees.
