Debate Continues Over Payment in Lawsuit Against Dearborn Judge

Lawyers working for the and Judge Mark Somers met Thursday with Dearborn legal counsel and city leaders to continue the discussion about who is responsible for payment of $732,361 awarded in July to a former employee who sued Somers for wrongful termination.

Julie Pucci, a former administrator in the 19th District Court, that her due process was violated when her job was eliminated without cause or warning. A federal jury agreed, . In addition, the jury backed Pucci’s claim that Somers retaliated against her when she filed a complaint with the State Court Administrative Office.

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. , and began to garnish his wages at the start of 2012.

Robert Harrison, legal counsel for the court, said Thursday that he intends to show "why I believe that the city is responsible for payment," a position the city's legal team has repeatedly fought.

No conclusion was reached Thursday night, as several similar cases were brought forward on both sides which each legal team believed set precedent for their position.

However, the debate continued between the city and the court.

City Attorney Deborah Walling said that the difference between this case and others is that the city was undebateably dismissed as a party in the lawsuit.

"The only defendant that went to trial was Mark Somers as an individual," she said.

Conversely, Harrison pointed out that as the funding unit for the court, the city accepts responsibility for both its costs and its profits.

"A judge does not get a bonus for doing a great job," Harrison said. "If he does a lousy job and there’s a judgment against him, that does not excuse the funding unit."

Harrison suggested that the city could seek indemnification in the case from the state, which also partially funds the court, as district judges are technically state employees. However, that route would require the city to accept responsibility for payment of the judgment.

No follow-up meeting has been set at this time, but the legal teams plan to meet again in the near future to hopefully settle the issue.