Bray Attorney Asks Jury to Award Her $1.15 Million in Sex Scandal : Justice: Closing arguments are presented in lawsuit trial of a former city planner.

While attorneys clashed Tuesday on whether San Diego city officials leaked information about a secret $100,000 settlement in a sexual harassment claim against former Planning Director Robert Spaulding, the lawyer representing Susan Bray for the first time asked a jury to award the former city planner about $1.15 million.

The jury in the case heard closing arguments designed to help the panel determine if the city violated a confidential agreement by giving reporters previously undisclosed details about what Mayor Maureen O’Connor called the biggest scandal that she had seen in 20 years of public service.

“Nobody’s going to take the heat and tell you ‘I told the press’ . . . but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming,” said Frank Rogozienski, who has represented Bray since she was negotiating the secret settlement with the city.

Rogozienski showed the jury a list of prominent city officials who either knew about the agreements or had access to key files.

While Bray had no reason to make this settlement public, a number of city employees had a motive to reveal the information, including some who “didn’t like Bob Spaulding” and others who objected to the settlement itself.

Bray filed the sexual harassment claim with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing about two years ago, after a 2 1/2-year sexual relationship with Spaulding, her former boss.

While Bray testified that she consented to having sex with the head of her department, Spaulding testified that it was a consensual relationship.

In the settlement, which caused an uproar because it was designed to circumvent approval usually required from the City Council, Bray received a lump sum cash payment of $19,995 and three years of paid, long-term disability benefits.

Press reports revealed the settlement 2 1/2 months after it was signed by both sides, leading to what Rogozienski called a “battle in the press” pitting the elected mayor and City Council against high-level officials, especially City Manager John Lockwood and City Atty. John Witt.

“This was a battle that Susan Bray didn’t have a chance in,” he said.

While O’Connor testified earlier in the trial that she talked to reporters who had already uncovered the story, Rogozienski showed the jury enlargements of the first newspapers articles dealing with what eventually became known as the City Hall sex scandal.

The first published article cites O’Connor in the first paragraph as the source of information, including the figure of $100,000. The second published article says that O’Connor “confirmed” the details of the settlement, contradicting testimony from both the mayor and her press secretary that O’Connor was only asked to give comment on the matter.

“The fact is that she (O’Connor) brought two reporters into her office, closed the door and had a meeting with them,” Rogozienski said. “You can call it a press conference or a meeting--it doesn’t matter.”

Rogozienski said that Bray’s initial claim with the city after the settlement became public--a document that asked for $2.35 million--was too much money. The attorney said the jury should award his client about half that amount to compensate her for lost wages, irreparable damage to her career and the “intentional infliction of emotional distress” caused by the city’s “outrageous conduct.”

“Susan is not sitting here looking for a handout from you,” Rogozienski said as tears streamed down Bray’s face.

With the mayor sitting for the first time at the defense table in the courtroom, Michael Weaver, the attorney hired to represent the city, strongly disagreed with Rogozienski. He said Bray is primarily interested in receiving money.

“The big issue that brings us all together is: Susan Bray wants money,” Weaver said.

Hammering away at Bray’s credibility and her “self-serving comments” made on the witness stand, Weaver said: “It’s about money. She wants the city of San Diego to take care of her for the rest of her life. Make no mistake about that.”

Contrasted with Rogozienski’s argument that this case demonstrates the battle between two groups of public officials, Weaver said the “two competing interests” were Bray’s right to privacy versus the public’s right to know.

Related to this is one of other big issue--how local government works, according to Weaver. “This is about what goes on in City Hall and who runs the government,” he said.

The story of the secret settlement was uncovered by “industrious reporters” and additional details were obtained after the “the city was literally buried with requests under the Public Information Act for information related to the settlement,” Weaver said.

As the city responded to requests for documents, an “effort was made to protect the privacy of the individual involved,” Weaver said, pointing to several documents from which had been deleted personal information about Bray’s medical history.

“There’s no proof that anyone at the city intended to cause Susan Bray emotional distress,” he said.

Weaver also argued that Bray herself may have been indirectly responsible for the news leak that allegedly caused her so much pain and suffering.

In addition to the number of city employees who knew of the settlement, the evidence in the case indicated that Bray told at least five other people. While four of her friends were city employees, if one of these people told the press the city would not be responsible for damages because Bray would be the original source of information, Weaver said.

“The city was not the source of that information . . . they (her friends) knew because Susan Bray told them,” Weaver said.

Speaking of the publication of Bray’s name in relation to the sexual harassment claim and subsequent settlement, Weaver said there has been “no testimony or proof it involved any of these people” that Bray has accused.

The city continues to honor its obligations under the settlement agreement, Weaver said, noting that Bray continues to receive biweekly checks of slightly more than $1,000.

While Bray’s lawsuit initially asked for damages to compensate her for the alleged sexual harassment, the judge in the case ruled last week that the settlement agreement was still binding.

After it hears instructions from U.S. District Judge Edward J. Schwartz, the jury will begin deliberations Thursday.