San Mateo County defended itself against a $10 million government lawsuit filed last month by embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus. She claims the county's investigation into alleged misconduct and corruption by her administration stems from harassment and discrimination.
“The allegations in Corpus' claim – that she has been discriminated against, harassed and defamed, particularly because she is both a woman and a Latina person – are completely baseless and distract from the issues that give rise to the current circumstances,” the said county in a press release released this week.
Filing a state lawsuit is a required step before a lawsuit can begin.
The lawsuit follows the November 2024 release of an independent audit by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell detailing allegations of misconduct, corruption and workplace bullying involving Corpus and her former chief of staff Victor Aenlle on the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office were described.
“The government’s lawsuit, which contains false and misspelled names – including those of the sheriff himself and Supervisor Noelia Corzo – is largely devoid of alleged facts supporting its conclusions and egregiously accuses retired Judge LaDoris Cordell of complicity to be what the lawsuit calls an 'evil scheme,'” the county said.
Brad Gage, a lawyer for Corpus, claimed that the investigation led by Cordell was at risk and pointed to the former judge's financial compensation as a potential conflict of interest.
“Generally, investigators are paid by the municipal employer – in this case, the county,” Gage previously told this news organization. “If their results are not in the employer’s favor, they risk losing future business. It’s a lucrative system for those who conduct these investigations.”
The district rejected these allegations on the grounds that paying for the investigation was common practice when hiring external auditors.
“With respect to the cost of the investigation, Cordell was contracted at $750 per hour, and the investigation and associated report cost approximately $200,000 to complete,” the county said, publicly citing Cordell for the first time amount paid is known.
The county said the cost reflects the extensive work that was done, including interviews with 40 current and former employees, and the time it took to adjudicate numerous complaints.
“This is consistent with the expense of a complex and sensitive investigation of this nature, as well as the level of experience, expertise and unique qualifications that Cordell brought to the matter,” it said.
Another issue raised in the lawsuit concerns an alleged missing 29 pages from Cordell's interview with Aenlle, according to Gage.
The district denied that the omission of pages from Aenlle's interview was “disgraceful.” .
“Twenty-nine pages of the transcript were not included in the exhibit because they were not cited by Cordell nor were they relevant to the report,” the county statement said. “There was nothing wrong with these pages not being included, but given the level of interest, they are now available on the county website.”
Gage disagreed, saying the missing pages were essential to the investigation.
“It shouldn’t have been held back and hidden,” Gage said in a telephone interview Thursday. “Maybe it wasn't cited by Judge Cordell, but it surely must have been, because those are the pages that show lots of the conclusions are usually not supported.”
This March, San Mateo County voters will decide whether to give the Board of Supervisors the authority to remove Corpus from office, which would remain in effect until the end of Corpus' term in 2028. County election officials estimate the cost of the election to be more than $3.8 million.
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, two sheriff's deputy unions, sheriff's department heads, several congressional and local politicians, and the city of San Carlos have all passed votes of no confidence in Corpus' leadership. She also faces a separate investigation into alleged campaign finance violations.
Despite mounting pressure, Corpus refused to resign or allow recall efforts.
“The defendants (San Mateo County) have now used the false investigation to seek an unprecedented recall – one that ends when Sheriff Corpus’ term expires – in an attempt to fire her based on false allegations,” says the lawsuit. “It’s time to fight back and bring the truth to light. This government claim is just part of that process.”
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com