A former Los Angeles County deputy CEO has reached a settlement in her lawsuit in which she alleged she was wrongfully denied a six-month severance agreement by management in 2022 when she planned to retire in order to take a private sector job.
Plaintiff Antonia Jimenez helped oversee the county Dept. of Public Social Services and formerly had a top public service job in Massachusetts. On Wednesday, her attorneys filed court papers with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maurice A. Leiter notifying him of an “unconditional” resolution in the case. No terms were divulged.
In their previous court papers, county attorneys denied Jimenez’s allegations and said that even if Jimenez could have proven an unlawful motivation on the county’s part, the county would have been justified in taking the same action anyway.
Jimenez’s lawsuit alleged unlawful discrimination and retaliation as well as failure to prevent discrimination.
Jiminez’s longtime career included roles with the Massachusetts Dept. of Children and Family Services and as the CEO for the Massachusetts State Controller. After a stint in the private sector, she chose to return to public service and joined the county as its deputy CEO in 2018 overseeing the DPSS at an annual salary of about $330,000.
Jimenez’s contract stated that if the county terminated the agreement with or without cause, the Plaintiff would be entitled to a payment in an amount equal to six months of her salary, according to her suit filed in February 2024.
After serving as the DPSS head for over four years, Jimenez was considering retirement from public service in December 2021 when she was contacted about a position in the private sector with a global professional services IT company, the suit stated.
Jimenez accepted the job in May 2022 and notified the county of her pending retirement and she received commendations for her work from the then-members of the Board of Supervisors, according to the suit.
However, Jimenez was denied the six-month severance given other senior county members who were all male, the suit states. In addition, a county lawyer told Jimenez she had violated a county ordinance and state law when she had communications regarding employment with the private sector company that went beyond the permissible actions of simply sending a resume, entertaining informal inquiries about future plans, or receiving expressions of general interest in potential employment at some point in the future, the suit stated.
The assertion was false because Jimenez actually complied with the legal advice previously provided by the county lawyer and the plaintiff never negotiated any job offer from the firm, according to the complaint.