Surprise to appeal $375K verdict in ex-detective's harassment lawsuit

Surprise will appeal a jury's decision to award a former police detective $375,000 for harassment and retaliation she said she suffered from fellow police officers.

The Surprise City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to direct the city attorney to appeal the decision made by a Maricopa County Superior Court jury last month in favor of Alicia Peterson's wrongful termination claim. Peterson, a decorated combat Marine, alleges that the hostile environment at the Surprise Police Department forced her to leave her post as a detective in 2010. The appeal will be filed at the Arizona Court of Appeals.

During Peterson's trial in January, she testified that several male officers threatened and harassed her after she ranked in first place for a promotion to sergeant. In one instance, she called for backup while on duty and no officers came to her assistance, she testified.

The council discussed the appeal during an executive session, which was closed to the public. Councilman Skip Hall said in an interview that the council decided to appeal the decision because they feel confident the appeal is "winnable" after reviewing the facts of the case.

Peterson's attorney Veronica Manolio said she believes the council was not fully informed about the case. Additionally, she said an appeal will further waste Surprise taxpayer dollars.

Manolio said Peterson has been willing to settle since she filed the lawsuit in 2011. Originally, Peterson asked the city to settle for $20,000, Manolio said. A week before the case was heard in January, Peterson once again asked to settle — this time for $50,000 — but the city again declined.

"In essence, between attorney's fees and the verdict, this is over $500,000 of taxpayer money that could have been avoided for $50,000," Manolio said.

When asked for a response, City Attorney Robert Wingo said, "Considering city council's action last night authorizing the city attorney to pursue an appeal in the lawsuit, it would not be prudent to debate plaintiff's attorney's recollection of settlement negotiations or discuss motives at this time."

Peterson is still willing to discuss a settlement with the city for a lesser amount than the $375,000 she was awarded, but the city has not contacted her about a settlement since the verdict, Manolio said.

"The city has not once since the verdict came down ... reached out to try to settle, even to have a settlement discussion before they voted unanimously to go spend their city's tax dollars some more," Manolio said.

At trial, Manolio argued that the city did not follow its own protocols to stop inappropriate behavior from Peterson's colleagues. Peterson testified that she complained about the conduct of her fellow officers to at least five individuals in leadership roles at the department, including her direct supervisor, and went to the department's human resources representatives at least three times.

Peterson said her superiors told her not to worry about it and that the department would support her. The city's attorneys called this action "encouragement" by her supervisors. Manolio called it ignoring harassment.

The city's lawyers also argued that most of the allegations of harassment were rumors and third-party information. They also argued that people in management roles always expressed that they were on Peterson's side.

"There's nothing that was done by the management in retaliation for her complaint," attorney Peter Prynkiewicz said during the trial.

Peterson, who is currently serving as an active-duty Marine in Japan, said after the trial that she believes gender harassment could still be occurring in Surprise.

"I pray (the verdict) helps," she said.

Manolio said the appeals process typically takes 18-24 months. If the court overturns the verdict, it could send the decision back to Superior Court to be retried, which would require Peterson to return from Japan to provide testimony, Manolio said.