In early February, the media reported a settlement agreement in a harassment case against Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto. The settlement was $98,000 to former Deputy Victoria Zetwick under the condition that there be no further suits or contact with the media.
The case was dismissed via summary judgment in 2014, but reinstated in 2016 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At that time, Ed Prieto, the sheriff, remained dismissed from the case and what was reopened was the workplace lawsuit between Ms. Zetwick and Yolo County.
As County Counsel Phil Pogledich confirmed to the Vanguard, “an outside law firm retained by our local agency risk management authority (YCPARMIA) handled all aspects of the defense and settlement of this case. My office had no role in the settlement or the litigation.”
He added, “Sheriff Prieto was dismissed prior to the settlement and the County was the only remaining defendant at the time of the settlement.”
The settlement itself was to come directly from the county’s joint powers risk management agency, YCPARMIA (Yolo County Public Agency Risk Management Insurance Authority). No county money was to go to the settlement.
As the agreement put it, “In order to avoid the substantial expense and inconvenience of further litigation, the Parties now desire to finally settle all claims asserted in the Complaint, as well as all issues that were raised or could have been in the lawsuit, as well as any claims or potential claims arising from any transactions or occurrences between PLAINTIFF, Prieto and DEFENDANT COUNTY.”
As part of the settlement, the county was to order retirement badges, for Ms. Zetwick and her husband, from the sheriff’s department.
Once the settlement was tendered, Ms. Zetwick agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice from the courts.
The matter was deemed confidential “to the extent authorized by law, and will not be discussed with anyone other than persons necessary to effectuate the settlement, spouses, accountants, attorneys, County Board of Supervisors, the Board of Directors of YCPARMIA or as otherwise required by law.”
They further agreed not to “contact the press or any other media in regard to the lawsuit or the settlement,” and will not “make reference to the case, ZETWICK’s claims, any of the Sheriff’s past 
relationships, or the settlement on any internet site, including social media, and will not make any statements to anyone, including media or members of the public, about ZETWICK’s claims, the case, the settlement, any of the Sheriffs past relationships, or any issues related to disputes between ZETWICK, and COUNTY other than either simply say the matter has been resolved.”
If the parties are contacted by a third party regarding the case, “they agree they will not make any statements to said third party other than to say the matter has been resolved.”
The county is of course a public entity and “is statutorily required to allow public access to certain COUNTY documents and information. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent COUNTY from complying with public record disclosure requirements under the California Public Records Act including release of this document if required.”
In light of the pending contested election for Yolo County Sheriff between Ed Prieto and Undersheriff Tom Lopez, it seemed important to clarify some of the aspects of the settlement – first of all, that Sheriff Ed Prieto was no longer a party to the suit at the time of its settlement. The settlement was agreed to by the risk management agency.
While it is standard to not admit wrongdoing, in this case, the case was settled strictly on a risk management basis. The agency deemed the time and expense of going to trial – even if successful – to be more expensive than their ultimate settlement agreement of $98,000.
The settlement precludes Ms. Zetwick from making statements on the case or contacting the media, or even posting about the case on social media. Or even posting about other alleged relationships on social media or the internet.
In effect, the settlement agreement figures to at least partially remove this issue from the sheriff’s race, although it is less clear if the sheriff would be able to respond to allegations as, once again, he is not a party to the settlement.
“Prieto subjected plaintiff to unwanted hugs and kisses,” her lawsuit stated. “Plaintiff estimates that over the course of 14 years with the Sheriff’s Department, with Prieto as sheriff, he has hugged her at least 100 times.
“Each time was awkward, unsolicited and unwelcome for the plaintiff.”
Sheriff Prieto through his attorney denied the allegations, calling the hugs “platonic” and “no different than the type of hug one might give or receive with a grandma or friend.”
The suit appeared dead in 2014 when a U.S. District Court judge found that Ms. Zetwick “did not put forth sufficient facts to support her claim.” However, that was reversed in November 2016 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
The sheriff, as it turns out, has been subject to a number of complaints, but none of them have been substantiated.
In 2014, a Grand Jury report likened Sheriff Prieto’s office to “the wild, wild west,” finding a years-long record of intimidation, harassment and nepotism.
However, that report was heavily accused of embellishment, and of failure to substantiate the most serious charges. It was criticized as well by the Board of Supervisors, with Supervisor Matt Rexroad stating it was unclear from the report whether a number of the statements made by the Grand Jury had been factually proven or whether these were simply allegations.
“This thing is written so poorly that I can’t tell whether …” he started. “There’s certainly enough in here for my mind that gives us every reason to go in and look at this operation very carefully.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The post Analysis: Harassment Settlement Agreement Was against Yolo County appeared first on Davis Vanguard.