Dearborn Judge Forced to Pay for Former Employee's Lawsuit
Judge Mark Somers' wages will be garnished to fund a $1.2 million lawsuit judgment in favor of former court employee Julie Pucci.
Photos
A Dearborn district judge will see his wages garnished due to the court's denial of his motion to stop the enforcement of payment of a $1.2 million lawsuit judgment pending his appeal to a higher court.
Following a June 2011 jury decision to award former 19th District Court employee Julie Pucci a total of $732,000 plus court costs after she was fired from the court, Dearborn judge Mark Somers appealed the judgment and requested a stay without bond, assuring the court that the City of Dearborn held responsibility for payment of the lawsuit.
However, the court denied the request on Dec. 16, finding that the "demonstrated resistance by the City of Dearborn to acknowledge any responsibility for Judge Somers' conduct or the resulting liability for his constitutional violations" meant that Somers had to pay the $1.2 million.
The city's legal department has repeatedly stated that the suit was against Somers–not the court-and therefore payment of legal decisions against him fell on his back, or on the state of Michigan because district judges are state employees.
According to statements on the matter provided by Pucci's legal counsel, Somers counsel met with them to discuss a settlement, which he claimed the city had agreed to pay for. As a result, Pucci and attorney Joel Sklar agreed to put a hold on any wage garnishments.
But Sklar and Pucci said they learned on Jan. 18 that the city had no intention to fund any settlement, which led them to approve the wage garnishments formerly issued by the court.
According to the Dearborn Press and Guide, a hold was immediately placed on Somers' next paycheck from the city for $3,399.13.
“I hope he has $1.2 million to satisfy the judgment," Sklar told the Press and Guide. "But with the city still not acknowledging any liability I had no choice but to move forward and secure Ms. Pucci’s judgment."
marooned in Dbn
2:37 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
According to a July 28 article in Patch, Ms. Pucci had a live-in relationship with Judge Hultgren. Is there proof that Somers dis-approved of a shack-up relationship between the above mentioned persons and used this dis-approval as a cause to fire Pucci? Again...proof please. Is Judge Somers the Chief Judge ? If so, then he has the power to fire ppl to cut costs. What civil rights were abused ? Ppl get "cut", all the time in private enterprise, why should the court system be any different. Just think of it...almost a million dollars because she was "let go". Thats some pretty good easy gettin' scratch. This woman was a creature of the court system. She lived by it even in private life. Thank goodness however that this man has to pay for this out of his own pocket and not out of taxes on my house, once again. But, I think the whole affair reeks.
Carla O'Neill
10:51 am on Friday, January 27, 2012
My understanding is that there is an insurance policy purchased by either the city or the court to pay for this settlement. Why have we heard no mention of this?
Lee Jacobsen
12:18 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
In the private sector, employers, and employees, have the free will to hire and leave, without consequences. Marooned is right....the who situation reeks.... Perhaps the fragrance of a lady, Candyce, can freshen things up a bit as I note she is running against Somers.....
Anna Robson
7:32 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Lee, I don't believe a person can be let go for discriminatory purposes. How can an employer say we're are letting you go for budgetary reasons and the next week hire someone at a higher salary? Maybe it would have made more sense for Somers to step down to save money seeing that his salary was three times more. By the way, the article states Abbatt is running against Wygonik. Somers get another free pass.
Lee Jacobsen
12:49 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Anna, In the private sector, employment on both sides, employee, and employer, is based on 'free will'. You are free to leave the job and go elsewhere at anytime, also, the employer is free to let you go at any time. Often, it is for performance, but in today's real world of suing over hot coffee, the reason is that the company is going in a 'different direction' or anticipates a 'slow period' in your specialty. Good references are always given , which is why I never read them and instead hire from the temp agencies, that way I can see their actual work performance for 6 months, then make a decision. With a temp agency, a simple "services not needed " is all that need be said. If I really want the person, I pay a fee to the temp agency, and they are hired.
Discrimination is a different matter, but your example is not discrimination, it is free will, I am free to offer any salary I want, and the employee is free to accept or dicker for even more. However, if I say "can't hire you, you don't speak English" , that would probably be the wrong thing to say. I get a lot of folk that bring their girlfriends to fill out applications, since they cannot read. Is it discrimination if one of my requirements is that you have to read a 'work order'?
Education is a must in today's work force. They want to run a computerized automated machine but have no clue. My best folk are from the military.that is a big hint on where they should go to further their education.