Fired Zoo Chief Loses Court Bid to Bar City From Hiring Replacement

Warren Thomas, the fired director of the Los Angeles Zoo, said in federal court documents that he was the innocent victim of a distrusting department head who implied he might be taking kickbacks on animal sales.

However, Thomas failed Friday to win a temporary restraining order barring the city from hiring a permanent successor to the $73,000-a-year post.

Instead, U.S. District Judge William J. Rea scheduled a hearing July 15 on Thomas’ request for a preliminary injunction ordering his reinstatement.

Rea said he appreciated the need for the city to hire a zoo director while Thomas’ suit is pending, but he warned that if the city hires a permanent replacement and Thomas wins his suit, the replacement would have to be fired.

Second Suit

Then, Rea said, the city might face a second lawsuit from Thomas’ replacement.

At issue in the increasingly tangled legal dispute is the dismissal of Thomas June 4, after a 45-minute hearing by James E. Hadaway, general manager of the Department of Recreation and Parks, and two other department officials.

Hadaway said at the time that Thomas had failed to solve “a series of internal disputes” at the Griffith Park facility. Hadaway declined to discuss details of the problems.

However, more details became available Friday in the form of a declaration filed with the court by Thomas.

In it, Thomas charged that Hadaway “has shown on numerous occasions that he has animosity towards me.”

Thomas cited a Dec. 19, 1985, meeting in which the two men and another department official discussed the acquisition of $750,000 worth of animals from a South African Zoo, the government of Indonesia and the private stock of the president of Zaire.

Thomas claimed Hadaway said that “zoo directors are known to augment their salaries with side deals.”

Denial Issued

Thomas said he immediately told Hadaway, “I have never taken a dime in terms of a side arrangement or kickback or anything else in my entire professional career and I am appalled that you should even suggest such a thing.”

He said Hadaway then stated he was not making a direct accusation but insisted kickbacks are “well known in the profession.”

In proceedings Friday, Nathan Goldberg and Gloria Allred, lawyers for Thomas, argued that their client had been denied due process of law by a “kangaroo court” that failed to allow Thomas time to prepare, present witnesses or exhibits and confront witnesses against him.

Deputy City Atty. Diane Wentworth maintained that Thomas was hired as an exempt employee who could be fired without the usual hearing required in discharging a Civil Service worker. Wentworth said Thomas served “at the pleasure” of Hadaway. Because Thomas was exempt, she added, Thomas does not now have a “protectable property interest” requiring a due-process hearing to fire him.

Property Right

Goldberg insisted, however, that Thomas had a protectable property right, not only because of his dozen years of service but because of a statement made to him in 1982 by Elliott Porter, personnel director of the Recreation and Parks Department.

Citing a declaration by Porter, the attorney said the city official had told Thomas that he would not be fired without a department hearing. His client had every right to expect one, Goldberg insisted.

In ruling, Rea suggested that even though Thomas was an exempt employee, Porter’s statement might be construed as creating a property interest for Thomas in his job as zoo director.

After the court hearing, Thomas said he was “very encouraged” by the proceedings.

Hadaway declined comment Friday.