Victim advocate fired for misdirected 'panties' email sues district attorney's office for its comments
A victim witness advocate has sued for privacy invasion and defamation following his firing for mistakenly sending a “wacky email” to the entire San Francisco district attorney’s office that read, “What color panties you have on.” (Image from Shutterstock)
A victim witness advocate has sued for privacy invasion and defamation following his firing for mistakenly sending a “wacky email” to the entire San Francisco district attorney’s office that read, “What color panties you have on.”
The July 19 lawsuit by Jovan Thomas says the San Francisco district attorney’s office mischaracterized his email as misogynistic and falsely implied that it was part of an ongoing history of sexual harassment.
Thomas said he intended to text the question to a longtime personal friend and fraternity brother who was in New Zealand to bury his father. Thomas and the friend are heterosexual, his suit says, and Thomas thought that the question would help his friend cheer up.
But things went awry when Thomas mistakenly added the question intended as “a silly joke” to a “reply all” response to a calendar invitation. San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins had sent the invitation to an anti-discrimination meeting related to the 1998 torture and murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student.
Thomas immediately apologized and explained his mistake, the suit says.
“Absolutely no one who received plaintiff’s email could reasonably have believed that plaintiff had actually inquired of his boss, the district attorney of San Francisco, what color panties she was wearing, either seriously or as a joke, much less in an email sent to the entire staff at defendant SFDA,” the suit says.
The intended text “was a whimsical question that was part of plaintiff’s standard jocular repertoire with his friend,” the suit says. “In the context of their longtime friendship, plaintiff’s flip question had no sexual, off-color, obscene, misogynistic or sexist meaning or intent. Rather, it was a goofy, nonsequitur by one longtime friend to another friend intended to try to divert and cheer him up while he was going through a difficult and upsetting experience.”
Thomas sent the mistaken email on Jan. 26, 2024. Later that day, Thomas was told that he was being laid off. But that status was later changed to a firing for cause Feb. 2. Thomas thinks that the change was intended as cover for staff members who contacted the media about the email and referred to an old, meritless Jane Doe suit to imply a work history of sexual harassment.
The press was told that the email was misogynistic and a violation of the office’s code of conduct. A “deluge” of press coverage followed, the suit says.
The suit alleges invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, invasion of privacy by placing Thomas in a false light, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, a violation of California’s labor code, negligence, infliction of emotional distress, fraud, interference with economic relationships and conspiracy.
Publications covering the suit include the Sacramento Bee, the Los Angeles Times, the Daily Mail, the Bay Area News Group and the New York Post. Courthouse News Service posted the suit.
The San Francisco district attorney’s office declined to comment on the suit when contacted by the Los Angeles Times.
