1 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, State Bar No. 134108
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN, APC
29900 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
(310) 265-5788 Telephone
[email protected]
COREY W. GLAVE, State Bar No. 164748
LAW OFFICE OF COREY W. GLAVE
229 Via Pasqual
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(323) 547-0472 Telephone
[email protected]
Attorneys for Claimant
BERENICE BALLINAS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CLAIM – CITY OF ANAHEIM
BERENICE BALLINAS, an individual
Claimant,
v.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, an entity of unknown
origin ASHLEIGH AITKEN, an Individual;
and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive
Defendants.
CASE No. Unknown
CLAIMANT BERENICE BALLINAS’
GOVERNMENT CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 905
AND 910, ET SEQ.
2 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
GOVERNMENT CLAIM
I. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT.
Berenice Ballinas, c/o Lawrence J. Lennemann, Law Office of Lawrence J. Lennemann, APC, 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274, (310) 265-5788; and Corey W. Glave, Law Office of Corey W. Glave, 229 Via Pasqual, Redondo Beach, CA 90277, (323) 547- 0472.
2. ADDRESS TO SEND ALL CLAIMS AND OTHER NOTICES.
Lawrence J. Lennemann, Law Office of Lawrence J. Lennemann, APC, 29900 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274, (310) 265-5788; and Corey W. Glave, Law Office of Corey W. Glave, 229 Via Pasqual, Redondo Beach, CA 90277, (323) 547-0472.
3. DATE, LOCATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING CLAIM.
Claimant’s claims against the City of Anaheim (“City”) include, inter alia, Date: Events ongoing and continuing through the present, resulting in Claimant’s being forced to take a leave of absence beginning on or about July 31, 2026.
Place: Primarily the City, as well as other locations at which Claimant was required to/requested to perform or participate in activities arising from or related to (or was told were related to) her City employment, including governmental functions, conferences, travel, community events, stakeholder events and other City-related social activities.
Facts: Claimant’s claims against the City involve, inter alia, harassment (including sexual harassment), retaliation and discrimination based upon her perceived sexual orientation, race, religion and disability; failure to investigate and prevent harassment, retaliation and discrimination; failure to take corrective action and protect Claimant after receiving notice of such conduct; retaliation against Claimant for reporting, opposing and/or refusing to participate in misconduct or for disclosing information (or for City’s belief that she had disclosed/may disclose information) that Claimant reasonable believed violated local, state or federal laws and/or applicable rules or regulations; and such further statutory and common-law claims as investigation and discovery may establish.
3 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
A Complaint with the California Civil Rights Department has also been/will be filed.
The following are examples, among many, of the conduct upon which Claimant’s claims are based and is not intended to constitute an exhaustive statement of every incident, communication, witness, injury, legal theory, or item of damages. Claimant expressly reserves the right to rely upon additional facts, witnesses, communications, documents, and other evidence identified through continuing investigation, administrative proceedings, and discovery.
A. Claimant.
Since December 7, 2022, Claimant has served as Chief Policy Advisor to the Mayor of the City of Anaheim, Ashleigh Aitken. Before joining the City, Claimant had years of experience in government, public policy, political campaigns, and related public affairs. She brought that experience to a sophisticated senior governmental position in which she served as a strategist, advisor, and project manager on matters having significant policy, governmental, community, and public implications.
Claimant’s responsibilities included researching and analyzing City policies, legislation, programs, and budgets; advising on policy matters; coordinating constituent services; working across City departments; collaborating with local, state, and federal governmental entities; assisting with media and public communications; preparing reports and correspondence; participating in governmental meetings; and representing the Mayor's Office in significant policy and community matters. Claimant consistently performed these demanding responsibilities at a high level.
Throughout her employment, she received annual merit increases, which Claimant understood to reflect the City’s continued recognition of her performance and contributions.
Her accomplishments extended well beyond the routine administration of the Mayor’s Office. Claimant worked with local, state, and federal officials and agencies to advocate for projects and resources benefiting Anaheim, advocated for City priorities in Sacramento, coordinated with state and federal governmental teams concerning projects and initiatives affecting Anaheim and its residents, and played a significant role in obtaining resources for programs serving Anaheim youth.
By all accounts, Claimant had established a record of successfully performing a sophisticated and demanding governmental role.
4 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
It is important to note that Claimant was hired and compensated to advise the Mayor on policy, advance governmental initiatives, coordinate with public agencies and community partners, advocate for the City’s interests, and help deliver results for City residents. As described in the sections that follow, Claimant instead was progressively required to assume substantial additional responsibilities arising from the Mayor’s personal conduct and crises that bore no reasonable relationship to the professional position Claimant had been hired to perform.
Despite same, Claimant continued performing the legitimate responsibilities of her position and carrying out substantive governmental responsibilities, including advancing City priorities and helping secure funding and opportunities for Anaheim youth, while simultaneously experiencing the increasingly difficult working conditions, increasing inappropriate burdens and conduct giving rise to this Claim described below.
B. Claimant Suffered Ongoing Harassment from her Direct Supervisor.
While performing her professional responsibilities and managing the additional burdens described below, Claimant was subjected to repeated harassment, discrimination, demeaning, intrusive questioning concerning her perceived sexual orientation, her Mexican heritage and her Catholic faith. The examples described below are representative only and are not intended to constitute an exhaustive recitation of every incident.
1. Sexual Harassment:
Throughout Claimant’s employment, on multiple occasions, the Mayor questioned, commented upon, and speculated about Claimant’s sexual orientation. Specifically, the Mayor repeatedly questioned whether Claimant was a lesbian, pressured her to acknowledge that she was a lesbian, questioned her about women with whom she associated, characterized female friends or colleagues as romantic partners, and repeatedly returned to the subject, despite Claimant’s obvious and communicated discomfort.
As set forth in more detail below, the Mayor often made these statements in front of third parties, adding to Claimant’s significant distress.
/ / /
/ / /
5 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Then-City Manager Jim Vanderpool was present for some of these conversations and, on certain occasions, made comments or participated in the discussion concerning Claimant’s perceived sexual orientation. Claimant did not understand Vanderpool’s participation as necessarily reflecting an independent interest in her sexual orientation.
Rather, Claimant understood his comments in the context of a broader workplace dynamic in which those around the Mayor often attempted to avoid directly contradicting or challenging her, particularly after she had been consuming alcohol. (See below.) As will be further demonstrated throughout this claim, Claimant alleges that the Mayor’s behavior when drinking could become erratic, belligerent, confrontational, and difficult to manage, and that even relatively minor disagreements or attempts to challenge her could escalate into unnecessary conflict or dramatic events. In that environment, Claimant understood Vanderpool’s occasional participation in these conversations as an effort to navigate or avoid escalating the Mayor’s behavior, rather than as evidence that he independently initiated or pursued the subject of Claimant’s sexual orientation.
Claimant does not allege that the Mayor and Vanderpool acted in concert with respect to all of the conduct described in this claim. Their respective roles varied considerably from incident to incident. In some instances, Vanderpool participated in conduct she considered inappropriate. In others, he was a percipient witness, the recipient of inappropriate conduct himself, an individual to whom Claimant reported concerns, or another City official attempting to navigate or respond to the Mayor's conduct. As the relationship between the Mayor and Vanderpool deteriorated, Claimant increasingly found herself caught between the two officials and drawn into disputes she had neither created nor could control.
In any event, Claimant repeatedly communicated that the questions and comments concerning her perceived sexual orientation made her uncomfortable and asked that the subject be dropped. The harassment and questioning nevertheless continued. Although Claimant distinguishes between the Mayor’s repeated initiation and pursuit of the subject and Vanderpool’s more limited participation in certain conversations, the cumulative effect remained deeply uncomfortable for Claimant.
/ / /
6 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
The Mayor’s repeated questioning became a continuing and unwelcome intrusion into Claimant’s personal life and the involvement or presence of senior City officials made it particularly difficult for her to disengage from these conversations. Being repeatedly placed in the position of having to explain, deny, or discuss her sexual orientation and private relationships caused embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, and increasing discomfort in professional and City-related settings. The problem was compounded by the power dynamics involved. The Mayor was Claimant’s direct supervisor and the City’s highest elected official, while Vanderpool was the City’s highest-ranking appointed administrator. Claimant therefore found herself attempting to establish reasonable personal boundaries while simultaneously navigating a workplace environment in which she believed that directly challenging the Mayor, particularly when alcohol was involved, could unnecessarily escalate the situation rather than end it.
2. Racial Harassment:
Claimant is of Mexican heritage. The Mayor made racially derogatory comments concerning Claimant's heritage on more than one occasion. Among the most serious incidents, the Mayor (representing a City with an approximately 53% Hispanic population) referred to Claimant as a "dirty Mexican." This statement occurred at least once in the presence of Vanderpool.
During another incident at Disneyland in May 2025, Claimant offered to drive the Mayor home because Claimant believed the Mayor had consumed too much alcohol to drive safely. The Mayor responded in substance that she was not going to have “a Mexican” drive her.
3. Religious Harassment:
Claimant is a practicing Catholic, and her religious faith and practices were known to the Mayor. Claimant regularly wore a cross reflecting her Catholic faith. For sake of example, in or about Fall 2024, while looking at the cross Claimant was wearing, the Mayor referred to God as Claimant’s “imaginary friend.” Claimant understood the remark as mocking her belief in God, her Catholic faith, and the religious significance of the cross she wore. The incident was particularly disturbing to Claimant when considered in light of the Mayor’s markedly different public presentation concerning religion and faith.
/ / /
7 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
C. The Mayor’s Alcohol Consumption’s Effect on Claimant.
As an initial important point, City leadership, officials, employees, elected officials, governmental colleagues, and outside stakeholders were well aware of the Mayor’s alcohol consumption and her resulting condition and behavior from their own personal observations.
Additionally, Claimant repeatedly communicated her concerns to members of City leadership and sought assistance. However, rather than establishing an effective mechanism that relieved Claimant of “responsibilities” outside of her job description that she lacked the authority to perform, senior officials frequently minimized the circumstances, treated difficult conduct by an elected official as something Claimant was expected to tolerate or learn to manage, or otherwise left Claimant to navigate the situation herself. This caused Claimant to be placed in the untenable position of being expected to manage conduct she lacked the authority to control, creating an imbalance between responsibility and agency, often well beyond normal working hours.
Claimant observed a recurring pattern of the Mayor’s alcohol consumption at official City functions, governmental conferences, stakeholder events, community events, City Council meeting days, and other activities arising from or intertwined with Claimant’s employment, followed by observable signs of apparent impairment, including slurred speech, impaired coordination, stumbling, belligerence, verbal outbursts, confrontational or unpredictable behavior, personal crises, and circumstances that Claimant was expected to manage or address.
Claimant was expected to recognize when a situation was becoming inappropriate and to intervene sufficiently to protect the Mayor, the Mayor’s Office, City relationships, and potentially members of the public, while simultaneously lacking authority to require the Mayor to follow her direction. In practical effect, this resulted in Claimant performing two fundamentally different roles simultaneously: (1) the legitimate sophisticated governmental and policy position for which the City employed her; and (2) an unofficial, frequently after-hours crisis-management role as the Mayor’s “handler”, involving the Mayor’s personal crises, interpersonal conflicts, public conduct, transportation needs (and related public safety concerns), as well as acting as a family intermediary.
However, during the course of her employment, City personnel and the Mayor’s family members nevertheless came to expect Claimant to perform precisely these functions. Monitoring, responding 8 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
to, and performing damage control arising from the Mayor’s alleged alcohol-related conduct consequently became a recurring, substantial, and exceptionally stressful component of Claimant’s working life. This recurring combination of responsibility without authority, compounded by the substantial supervisor-subordinate power imbalance, progressively eroded the boundary between her professional responsibilities and the Mayor’s personal affairs and substantially contributed to the working conditions and resulting harm described throughout this Claim.
Additionally, Claimant’s efforts to intervene oftentimes resulted in the Mayor becoming angry or belligerent toward Claimant, denying impairment, yelling at Claimant, accusing Claimant of exaggerating or fabricating concerns regarding the Mayor’s condition, claiming any criticism was “politically motivated”, or otherwise reacting adversely when Claimant attempted to establish limits or challenge the Mayor’s conduct. Because the Mayor directly supervised Claimant, Claimant alleges that refusing involvement, contradicting the Mayor, or attempting to establish firmer boundaries carried an entirely different significance than it would have in an ordinary social relationship between equals. This combination of responsibility without authority, repeated boundary violations, fear of employment consequences, exposure to unpredictable conduct, and the absence of an effective means of disengaging from the circumstances progressively contributed to the significant anxiety and psychological distress described throughout this Claim.
D. A Few Examples.
The Roses & Radishes Gala (October 23, 2024): Claimant attended the Orange County Taxpayers Association’s 14th Annual Roses, Radishes and the Royalty Award Dinner at the Hyatt Regency Irvine with the Mayor and Vanderpool. The Mayor consumed alcohol and became visibly intoxicated and increasingly belligerent throughout the course of the evening.
Also present at the event was a sitting member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
During the evening, the Supervisor expressed concern and asked Claimant to stop/address the Mayor’s drinking. Claimant’s attempts were unsuccessful. Claimant subsequently informed Vanderpool about the Supervisor's concerns and Vanderpool responded in substance: “We can’t do anything; she’s an elected.”
/ / /
9 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
After the formal event concluded, the group continued to a hotel bar and the Mayor continued consuming alcohol. Because alcohol had been consumed, Claimant ultimately drove Vanderpool’s vehicle, with the Mayor present. The Mayor stated that she did not want Claimant or Vanderpool to drive her vehicle because she did not want a “dirty Mexican” and a “faggot man” driving her car. Claimant and Vanderpool subsequently discussed what had occurred and Vanderpool stated that he would speak with the Mayor regarding her conduct. When Claimant attempted to speak with the Mayor, the Mayor denied making the remarks. Despite the involvement and knowledge of senior City leadership, no meaningful corrective intervention followed.
The Cal Cities Conference (November 12-15, 2024): Claimant attended the conference, along with members of the Anaheim delegation, including the Mayor and her husband, Vanderpool, Councilmember Steve Faessel, Susan Faessel, and others. The Mayor consumed alcohol during the conference and her resulting apparent intoxication and behavior became increasingly uncomfortable for members of the Anaheim delegation. The incidents occurred over multiple days and repeatedly drew Claimant and others away from their legitimate professional roles and into efforts to manage or respond to the Mayor's conduct.
After returning from the conference, Claimant disclosed/reported what had occurred to thenAssistant City Manager/current Interim City Manager Greg Garcia. Garcia responded that he would determine how the conference had gone and commented in substance that his direct report, Alyssa Guerrero, “has to get used to elected officials.” Garcia also compared the Mayor’s conduct to that of former Councilmember and characterized as “way worse.” To Claimant, Garcia’s response improperly attempted to minimize and normalize the conduct she was reporting.
Claimant understood Garcia’s comments to mean that difficult, inappropriate or illegal conduct by elected officials was something City employees were expected to encounter, tolerate, and learn to manage as part of working around elected officials. Vanderpool indicated that he would check on Steve and Susan Faessel. Claimant understood this to be Vanderpool taking at least some steps to follow up with individuals who had been directly affected by the events at the conference. Claimant recalls further communications with Vanderpool regarding the Faessels and others in attendance. / / /
10 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Initial Team Anaheim Dinner: During a Team Anaheim dinner, Claimant observed the mayor becoming physically affectionate with including touching and grabbing him. became upset and asked Vanderpool
to keep the Mayor away The Mayor’s husband eventually removed the Mayor from the dinner. The Mayor instructed Claimant to leave with them, requiring Claimant to leave the professional event and accompany the Mayor and her husband. While walking back toward the hotel, the Mayor became angry, pushed or knocked over a bicycle on the sidewalk, damaging its mirror. Claimant told the Mayor that the damage needed to be addressed. The Mayor continued walking while her husband remained behind to address the damaged bicycle. The Mayor subsequently fell in the street. Claimant told the Mayor’s husband, in substance, that the Mayor was not okay, needed help, The Mayor’s husband responded to Claimant:
“Don't we all?” The following day, the Mayor’s husband asked Claimant to make a Venmo payment to compensate the bicycle owner because he did not have access to Venmo.
Post-Police Chief Hiring (December 2025): As discussed in more detail below, the Mayor directed Claimant to make investigative inquiries concerning the process surrounding the hiring of the City’s new Police Chief. Claimant’s inquiries angered Vanderpool. Shortly thereafter, during the Disneyland Candlelight celebration in December 2025, Vanderpool publicly referred to Claimant as “Maleficent” - an evil Disney character - in front of other individuals. Claimant realized that she had been improperly placed in the middle of a growing feud between two of the City’s highest-ranking officials - a feud that would eventually culminate with Vanderpool’s February 2026 forced resignation. Claimant promptly reported the incident to the Mayor and the Mayor suggested that Claimant report Vanderpool to the City’s Human Resources Director Linda Andal. Claimant responded that she did not believe reporting the matter to Andal would result in meaningful corrective action. However, Claimant reported the incident to Garcia who, again, attempted to minimize Claimant’s concerns: “You know how Jim is. He didn’t mean it.” Claimant additionally disclosed/reported the incident to Anaheim Police Captain Eric Trapp, then-Police Chief Rick Armendariz, and Deputy Chief Charles Cinnamo.
/ / /
11 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
As the relationship between the Mayor and Vanderpool deteriorated, Claimant increasingly found herself caught between the City’s highest elected official and its highest-ranking appointed administrator. This dynamic complicated her ability to determine where and how to report legitimate workplace concerns without becoming involved in disputes between the two officials that were separate from her own employment issues.
Christmas Tree Incident (December 2024): A dispute arose concerning a Christmas tree that had been taken from another City department for which Claimant was falsely blamed. For various reasons, Claimant is informed and believes that she was falsely blamed for this theft (by a Caucasian co-employee and later by Vanderpool) because of her Mexican heritage. Vanderpool subsequently berated her during a personal telephone call, demanding - with zero factual basis - that Claimant admit responsibility. Claimant repeatedly maintained that she had not taken the tree and would not accept blame for conduct she did not commit.
City Council Meeting (April 22, 2025): The Mayor arrived at Anaheim City Hall for a City Council meeting at which time she appeared, to Claimant, to be visibly impaired by alcohol. Earlier, the Mayor had asked Claimant to pick her up, but Claimant was unable to do so. The Mayor participated in the Council meeting, including closed session. Following closed session, the Mayor asked Claimant to drive her home but Claimant did not have her own vehicle and sought assistance.
Claimant disclosed/informed Cinnamo that she believed the Mayor was intoxicated and needed assistance getting safely home. Cinnamo offered to drive the Mayor. However, Claimant ultimately obtained permission to use Vanderpool’s City vehicle and drove the Mayor approximately fifteen minutes to her residence. During the drive, the Mayor began searching through Vanderpool’s vehicle and personal belongings
and photographed it with her cell phone. Claimant
immediately objected, attempted to protect Vanderpool’s privacy, and told the Mayor to delete the photographs because Vanderpool’s information was private and none of their business. The Mayor nevertheless wanted Claimant to “confront” Vanderpool Claimant refused to do so.
12 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Angels’ Opening Day (April 2025): A close friend of Claimant’s who serves in a high level position for an elected Orange County official attended the baseball game as Claimant’s guest.
Claimant’s friend is openly lesbian and, at the time, was in a relationship with another individual.
During Claimant’s employment, the Mayor asked this individual - on multiple occasions - whether Claimant was a lesbian and had repeatedly questioned her concerning Claimant’s sexual orientation and gender identity. During the event, the Mayor (and Vanderpool) again raised questions and made comments to Claimant’s friend concerning Claimant’s perceived sexual orientation. The Mayor continued to characterize Claimant as a “lesbian” and repeatedly referred to Claimant’s friend as Claimant's “girlfriend”. The comments were unwelcome and embarrassing to Claimant and placed her in the position of having to navigate speculation about deeply personal matters while simultaneously maintaining professional relationships with City, County, and political officials.
Palm Springs Conference (April/May 2025): During the Southern California Association of Governments conference in Palm Springs, the Mayor appeared to be visibly intoxicated during a gathering attended by City officials. Another City employee reported to Claimant that the Mayor was stumbling and spilling her drink during the event. The City employee further described an interaction involving the Mayor and Vanderpool: When Vanderpool was dancing, the Mayor approached the employee and directed him to “go get him” because Vanderpool was “being too much.” When the employee asked what she meant, the Mayor directed his attention to the way Vanderpool was dancing and behaving. The employee then asked the Mayor whether she meant that Vanderpool was “being too gay” to which the Mayor responded, “yes.” The employee stated that he did not feel comfortable complying with the Mayor's request, so the Mayor went to retrieve Vanderpool herself. According to the City employee, as the Mayor subsequently walked past him with Vanderpool, she called the employee a “pussy” and stated: “Typical man, a woman has to do your job.”
During the Palm Springs gathering, the Mayor also disclosed - in front of others - that she had discovered while previously searching his
City vehicle.
/ / /
13 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
During the same conference, following a team dinner during which the Mayor again became confrontational with Vanderpool, members of the group continued to a hotel bar, where they encountered representatives of Jamboree Housing and other housing organizations. After the downstairs bar closed, the Mayor invited Claimant and several others to continue socializing.
Claimant eventually excused herself and left the gathering. However, Claimant subsequently learned that the Mayor had become involved in a dispute with individuals associated with Jamboree Housing concerning sexuality and the sexual orientation of a mutual acquaintance.
The following morning, Claimant was awakened by a communication from the Mayor providing her version of what had occurred. Claimant then contacted individuals associated with Jamboree Housing to better understand what had happened. Claimant subsequently received a call from Vanderpool, who appeared to have already learned about the incident.
In the early morning, while Claimant was returning to Orange County, the Mayor contacted Claimant and asked whether Claimant could take her to the hospital because she was not feeling well. Claimant was already nearly home and offered instead to arrange an Uber for the Mayor. Later that day, the Mayor told Claimant that Vanderpool had made statements concerning his involvement with remarks or an open letter by Councilmember Natalie Meeks criticizing the Mayor concerning the Angels. These allegations intensified the conflict between the Mayor and Vanderpool and increasingly placed Claimant between the two officials.
Claimant reported the situation to Garcia. Garcia responded, in substance: “You know how the Mayor is; just don’t let it get to you.”
Disneyland 70th Anniversary Event (May 14, 2025): When members of Team Anaheim attended a special Disneyland event associated with Disneyland’s 70th anniversary, tensions arising from the Palm Springs conference remained unresolved. At the pool bar at Disney's Grand Californian Hotel, the Mayor confronted Vanderpool regarding his alleged involvement in the Meeks matter. Immediately thereafter, Claimant and Vanderpool informed Garcia about what was occurring and described the Mayor’s demeanor and behavior. / / /
/ / /
14 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
The group was concerned about the Mayor’s alcohol consumption to the extent they discussed how to help her sober up before a scheduled stakeholder reception. Vanderpool asked Claimant whether she could speak with the Mayor because of her concerning behavior.
A Disney representative separately approached Claimant and told her that the Mayor should stop drinking because she appeared intoxicated.
Claimant went to locate the Mayor and asked whether she was feeling okay. The Mayor responded, in substance, that she was fine and questioned why everyone was making a big deal about her drinking. Claimant was approached regarding an ABC7 television interview with the Mayor but, because Claimant was concerned about the Mayor’s condition, she declined the interview on the Mayor’s behalf. The Mayor overheard Claimant and became angry, telling Claimant that she was not authorized to make decisions for her. The Mayor then proceeded with the interview, during which time her speech appeared slurred.
As Claimant (and her guest) were attempting to leave, Claimant sought assistance from a Disney representative who had been aware of concerns regarding the Mayor’s drinking. Claimant asked the Disney representative whether the Mayor’s vehicle could remain at Disney overnight and he said that it could. Claimant then offered to drive the Mayor home. The Mayor became angry, accused Claimant of fabricating the circumstances, and ultimately stated, in substance, that she was not going to have “a Mexican” drive her.
The following day, the Mayor repeatedly contacted Claimant, denied she had been drunk, and accused Claimant, Vanderpool and a Disney employee of attempting to tarnish her reputation.
The Mayor also accused Vanderpool (and another person) of plotting against her. Claimant told the Mayor that, based upon what Claimant had personally observed, she believed the Mayor had been intoxicated and that her behavior had been unkind and mean.
Vanderpool became angry with Claimant and accused her of betraying him by telling the Mayor that Claimant knew about his alleged involvement in the Meeks matter. However, the Mayor had previously told Claimant that Vanderpool himself had disclosed the information to her.
Vanderpool told Claimant that he could no longer trust her and stated that the Mayor liked to play mind games.
15 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Claimant again sought assistance from Garcia, who had been personally present for portions of the evening. Garcia told her to give Vanderpool time to cool off and stated, in substance: “You know how they are. They’ll make up in no time and it will go away.” Garcia’s response again left her without meaningful management assistance and reinforced the existing expectation that she was somehow expected to continue navigating the circumstances herself. By this point, the expectation that Claimant would manage the consequences of the Mayor’s behavior was no longer limited to isolated incidents. At City-related dinners, conferences, stakeholder events, and functions associated with official business, Claimant repeatedly became the person others approached when the Mayor’s alcohol consumption or behavior became concerning. She was asked to speak with the Mayor, monitor her condition, help her sober up, manage or decline public-facing interactions, arrange transportation, attempt to discourage her from driving when Claimant believed she was impaired, respond to individuals affected by her conduct, and address the consequences afterward.
U.S. Conference of Mayors (June 2025): In June 2025, Claimant traveled to Tampa, Florida with the Mayor and Vanderpool. During the trip, Claimant, the Mayor, and Vanderpool spent time together at a restaurant near the hotel. Vanderpool appeared to be emotional and asked Claimant and the Mayor to accompany him to another establishment. The establishment was an adult-oriented bar with sexually explicit imagery that made Claimant uncomfortable. Claimant eventually ordered transportation and returned to the hotel with the Mayor, while Vanderpool remained behind.
Upon returning to the hotel, Claimant went to her own room. Several hours later, at approximately 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. PST, Claimant was awakened by an urgent telephone call from the Mayor’s husband who instructed Claimant to locate the Mayor, get her packed, and arrange for her immediate return to California. Claimant got dressed, went to the Mayor’s room, and encountered the Mayor in what Claimant perceived to be an impaired condition. Claimant remained with the Mayor, packed her belongings, attempted to stabilize the situation, and prepared to get her safely out of the hotel and back to California.
/ / /
/ / /
16 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
During the early morning hours,
At approximately 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. PST, Claimant accompanied the Mayor to the airport so that she could return to California.
After returning from Florida, the Mayor was absent for an extended period of time. During her absence, Claimant was expected to manage inquiries concerning the Mayor’s whereabouts and availability while continuing to manage the Mayor’s governmental schedule and myriad professional responsibilities associated with the Office of the Mayor.
This dynamic placed Claimant in an impossible position. If she intervened, she risked angering or embarrassing her direct supervisor. If she sought assistance from others, she risked being perceived as disloyal or as disclosing sensitive personal information. If she remained silent, she risked being blamed by others for failing to intervene. And if the Mayor's conduct became visible at a City event or professional gathering, Claimant was frequently among the first people others looked to for assistance.
The Tampa incident - which fundamentally and irreversibly eroded any boundary between Claimant’s legitimate professional duties and the Mayor’s personal activities Claimant was expected to manage - changed the nature of the Claimant’s work environment and contributed substantially to the significant anxiety, hypervigilance, and emotional strain she experienced during the rest of her employment.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
17 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Disneyland Lunch (June 10, 2026): Claimant accompanied the Mayor to the Disneyland Resort for an outing the Mayor had proposed to celebrate Claimant’s birthday. Access to Club 33 was provided through the membership of a personal friend of Claimant. Claimant and the Mayor had lunch at Club 33. During lunch, the Mayor began consuming alcoholic beverages. Again, the Mayor repeatedly questioned Claimant concerning her sexual orientation, pressured Claimant to acknowledge that she was a lesbian, questioned and discussed Claimant’s dating history, and repeatedly returned to the subject despite Claimant’s efforts to disengage and her statements that she was not a lesbian.
Following the three-hour lunch, the Mayor insisted on continuing to drink. Claimant and the Mayor subsequently met Claimant’s friend (the Club 33 member whose membership had provided access for the outing) at the 1901 Lounge in Disney California Adventure, where the Mayor continued consuming alcoholic beverages. While at the 1901 Lounge, the Mayor directed similarly inappropriate and intrusive questioning toward a Disney Cast Member. The Mayor repeatedly questioned the Cast Member concerning whether he was gay or straight and about his dating life.
The Mayor spoke to the Cast Member in Spanish based upon her perception that he was Latino. The Cast Member did not engage with the Mayor’s personal questions and instead continued attempting to perform his work.
The Mayor then returned her attention to Claimant and, in front of Claimant’s friend, stated that she (the Mayor) knew Claimant was gay. Claimant again told the Mayor that she was not a lesbian. Despite Claimant’s repeated denials and obvious discomfort with the subject, the Mayor continued insisting that Claimant was gay. The Mayor’s behavior became sufficiently uncomfortable that Claimant’s friend eventually asked Claimant to calm the Mayor down. Claimant and the Club 33 member thereafter determined that it was time to leave.
On June 22, 2026, Disney issued formal written correspondence concerning the June 10 visit to Claimant's friend. Disney advised the Club 33 member that Cast Members had reported that a guest made “rude, insensitive, and inappropriate remarks” to a Cast Member during the visit to the 1901 Lounge. The Disney correspondence cited Club 33’s Proper Conduct Guidelines and further advised that mistreatment of a Cast Member constituted an “egregious violation.” 18 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Claimant subsequently informed the Mayor that Claimant’s friend’s Club 33 membership had been placed on hold as a result of the June 10 incident. The Mayor denied making any inappropriate comments, refused to accept responsibility, and, instead, asserted that Disney’s action was politically motivated and directed against her.
E. Claimant’s Disclosure of what she Reasonably Believed was Unlawful Conduct (Labor Code Section 1102.5).
Additionally, Claimant also reported conduct that she reasonably believed violated local, state or federal laws and/or applicable rules or regulations. Those disclosures constituted protected activity under Labor Code section 1102.5.
First, in the wake of Anaheim’s highly publicized corruption scandal - which culminated in former Mayor Harry Sidhu pleading guilty to federal felony charges arising from his conduct while in office - one would expect the City to be especially vigilant in ensuring strict compliance with the law, its ethical obligations, and the protections afforded to employees who report suspected wrongdoing. Indeed, in 2024, the City created an “Ethics Division” within the City Attorney’s Office, currently led by Assistant City Attorney Artin Berjikly and described by the City’s own website as “primarily providing legal advice and counsel in the areas of ethics, conflicts of interest and permissible political activities to the city council, department heads, executive staff, boards and commissions, and other city staff. The division also provides training and information, advises on compliance with required filings related to financial interests, conducts ethics policy analysis, evaluates existing laws related to ethics and makes recommendations when appropriate, and monitors State and other legislation as it relates to ethics to ensure that the city is compliant.” Secondly, in early 2026, after Vanderpool’s forced resignation for his alleged acceptance of approximately several hundred dollars of unreported funding, the Mayor publicly stated: (1) “I try to hold myself to a standard that is even higher than those of state law requirements”; (2) “Anaheim is never going to be able to turn the page and look the voters honestly in the eye and say, we have your best interests at heart if we’re not willing to follow the rules ourselves,”; and (3) “as elected officials and city staff, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard and not just follow the letter of the law, but follow the spirit of the law.”
19 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
A Few Examples:
Qatar Trip (May 2025): The Qatar Embassy invited the Mayor and a guest to visit Qatar.
The Mayor identified her guest as her husband. Claimant communicated directly with the Embassy, the Mayor, and the Mayor's husband regarding his participation. Claimant advised that the Mayor’s husband could not receive the benefit of the Mayor’s gift and that his expenses were required to be paid separately. The contemporaneous communications among the Qatar Embassy, the Mayor, the Mayor’s husband, and Claimant consistently reflected: (1) that the Mayor’s husband was participating as the Mayor’s guest; and (2) that reimbursement or separate payment was required for the Mayor’s husband’s airfare, lodging, meals, transportation, and other expenses. After the trip, Claimant obtained an itemization attributing approximately $16,779.34 in expenses related to the Mayor’s husband.
On May 28, 2025, the Embassy confirmed that it had paid those expenses. On May 29, 2025, Claimant disclosed/discussed the Qatar matter with Ethics Officer Berjikly. Claimant contemporaneously texted the Mayor:
When Claimant subsequently followed up with the Mayor regarding Berjikly’s inquiry, the Mayor responded that persons inquiring could “bite my ass.” On July 5, 2025, a constituent submitted a Public Records Act request concerning the Mayor’s Qatar travel. Claimant observed the Mayor become anxious about the requested records and asked whether she had reimbursed Qatar for the approximately $16,779.34 in expenses attributed to her husband. The Mayor responded: “It’s none of the City’s business.” Claimant is informed and believes that the Mayor’s husband’s expenses were not reimbursed. 20 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Claimant also questioned the Mayor's subsequent explanation that her husband had been separately invited because of his connection to Chapman University as that explanation appeared entirely inconsistent with the above-referenced contemporaneous communications among the Embassy, the Mayor, the Mayor’s husband, and Claimant. Claimant understood that the Mayor was attempting to address the issue through after-the-fact documentation rather than the contemporaneous communications concerning the Mayor's husband's participation and expenses.
Police Department Overtime Issues: Then-Police Chief Armendariz became aware of concerns regarding potential overtime abuse associated with Disneyland Resort assignments in Fall 2025. In response to those concerns, the City Attorney’s Office retained outside counsel, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW), to conduct an audit. While that audit was underway, the Mayor and Claimant became aware of broader concerns regarding potential misuse or improper reporting of APD overtime expenditures.
Initially, the Mayor directed Claimant to inquire with City management regarding the City’s 50 highest-paid employees and the overtime amounts associated with those employees. As Claimant attempted to obtain and reconcile the requested information, she encountered delays and was repeatedly advised that compiling the information would require a substantial amount of staff work.
After reviewing the information eventually provided, Claimant became concerned that the figures presented by City management did not accurately or completely reflect the underlying APD overtime information. Claimant disclosed to/consulted with Armendariz and Cinnamo regarding the discrepancies she had identified. Armendariz and Cinnamo confirmed that discrepancies existed between the information being presented and the underlying overtime information.
Claimant disclosed her continued attempts to reconcile conflicting information and to determine the actual overtime expenditures to the Mayor. Vanderpool and Garcia attempted to minimize the significance of the overtime concerns and resisted/delayed providing complete and accurate information necessary to reconcile the discrepancies. Although the Mayor initially directed Claimant to investigate the overtime issue, Claimant is informed and believes that the Mayor ultimately elected not to continue pursuing the matter because of political reasons as she was concerned that doing so could jeopardize the political endorsement of the Police Association. 21 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Police Chief Recruitment: At approximately the same time as the December 2025 “Maleficent” incident described above, Claimant (and the Mayor) began to have concerns regarding the City’s recruitment and selection of its next Chief of Police. In or about November 2025, while the City was conducting its recruitment for a new Chief, Claimant learned that Anaheim Police Association President Jose Duran was telling individuals that then-Glendale Police Chief Manuel “Manny” Cid had already been selected for the position, notwithstanding the fact that: (1) the recruitment process was still ongoing; and (2) the City had not publicly announced a finalist. These circumstances caused Claimant (and the Mayor) to question the integrity and transparency of the recruitment process.
Claimant disclosed this information to the Mayor, and the two discussed concerns regarding the integrity and timing of the recruitment process. The Mayor asked Claimant whether there were qualified internal candidates, and Claimant advised that she understood there were internal applicants participating in the process. While attending a conference in Salt Lake City, the Mayor sought to meet with Vanderpool regarding these concerns, but the meeting was cancelled. The Mayor thereafter sought to speak directly with the City’s executive recruiter concerning the recruitment and selection process. Claimant understood that Vanderpool objected, characterizing the Mayor’s involvement as an overstep and asserting that direct involvement in the recruitment process would violate the City Charter.
Claimant was then tasked with looking further into the recruitment process, with Fabela serving as an intermediary concerning the Mayor's inquiries. Among the issues Claimant was directed to investigate was whether Cid had timely submitted his application (i.e., during the established recruitment period or at some later time) and whether the recruitment had been conducted as represented, particularly in light of the information circulating before the selection was publicly announced that Cid was already the intended choice. Cid was publicly announced as the finalist and subsequently presented to the City Council for approval on December 9, 2025. Although the Mayor apparently had concerns regarding the process, Claimant recalls the Mayor ultimately stating words to the effect of: “This isn’t the hill I'm going to die on” because the Council had sufficient votes to approve the appointment.
22 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Misuse of Public Resources: The above-described erosion of professional boundaries extended to personal tasks unrelated to legitimate City business.
For sake of example, the Mayor directed Claimant and other City employees to provide assistance with the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast (which, for various reasons, Claimant understood to be a non-City religious event) during their regular City work hours and while being compensated with taxpayer funds. When directed to assist with the event during City work hours, Claimant declined but offered to volunteer during her personal time. However, other City employees did provide assistance with the event during their regular, taxpayer-funded City work hours at the direction of the Mayor. As an additional example, in July 2026, the Mayor forwarded Claimant information concerning the Mayor’s personal executive health examination and requested scheduling assistance. Claimant advised the Mayor that the appointment apparently needed to be arranged personally because private medical information was involved.
F. In July of 2026, Claimant was Placed on Leave and
Subsequently
On or about September 11, 2026, the City was informed of Claimant’s Communications during Claimant’s l leave further demonstrate that the Mayor knew Claimant was unavailable for work.
/ / /
23 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
G. City Retaliated Against Claimant.
Notwithstanding the City's undisputed knowledge of Claimant’s numerous protected disclosures (and its abject failure to act as mandated to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation) and Claimant’s serious circumstances, protected leave, and resulting injury, among other things, (1) the City removed Claimant’s information and profile from the City’s website; (2) the City’s Public Information Office communicated to external stakeholders that the Mayor’s office was going through a “transition,” insinuating that Claimant was no longer employed by the City; (3) the City (at what is understood to be the direction of Human Resources Director Linda Andal) withheld Claimant’s merit salary increase that had already been approved on July 28, 2026 (i.e., before Claimant’s leave began); (4) the City (again at what is understood to be at the direction of Andal) communicated its intention to remove Claimant’s information from the City website a second time, based on rationale not applied to any other Council-office staff members; and (5) the City has repeatedly failed to protect Claimant’s privacy and has allowed a false narrative to spread that she is out Additionally, Claimant is informed and believes that Fabela (who, as stated above, had previously made statements
disclosed to the Mayor the entirety of Claimant’s confidential correspondence, which contained sensitive medical information concerning Claimant's condition and resulting injuries, notwithstanding that the Mayor was the individual whose alleged conduct was the subject of the complaint. Claimant, via her counsel, immediately memorialized that, given those circumstances, it was impossible for any impartial independent investigation to proceed. The City Attorney's office’s disclosure also raises substantial concerns regarding the City’s compliance with its obligation to protect confidential employee medical information, especially after receiving notice that a City employee alleged serious misconduct by an elected official.
4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INJURY.
Suffice it to say that Claimant has been severely damaged by City’s conduct. / / /
/ / /
24 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
As a result of the City’s improper actions (and City’s failure to protect Claimant following her protected disclosures), Claimant has suffered significant special damages and general damages.
Additionally, Claimant has been forced to retain counsel and, as a result, will incur attorneys’ fees.
In 2025, the reasonable value of Claimant’s counsel’s hourly fees was judicially determined to be $1,200 per hour.
5. NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYEE/PERSON CAUSING INJURY.
Ashleigh Aitken; Linda Andal; Robert Fabela; Jim Vanderpool; and potentially other City employees, officers, officials, agents, representatives, and/or other persons having a relationship with the City whose identities and respective involvement are currently unknown.
6. KNOWN WITNESSES.
Claimant is informed and believes that the following persons may be witnesses: (1) Ashleigh Aitken; (2) Linda Andal; (3) Rick Armendariz; (4) Nam Bartash; (5) Artin Berjikly; (6) Charles Cinnamo; (7) Robert Fabela; (8) Steve Faessel; (9) Susan Faessel; (10) Greg Garcia; (11) Alyssa Guerrero; (12) Larry Labrado; (13) Carrie Nocella; (14) Eric Trapp; (15) Jim Vanderpool; (16) Claimant; (17) various family members of Ashleigh Aitken; (18) Disney employees and representatives having knowledge concerning certain incidents, including the ones described herein; (19) persons associated with Jamboree Housing; and (20) additional witnesses from, inter alia, the City, including the City Attorney’s Office and Council Members.
7. AMOUNTS CLAIMED.
The claimed amount in controversy (compensatory and other damages) exceeds $10,000.00 and will lie within the unlimited jurisdiction of the Orange County Superior Court. See, also, Section 4 above re: “General Description of Injury.”
DATED: September 21, 2026 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN ___Lawrence J. Lennemann_________________
LAWRENCE J. LENNEMANN,
Attorney for Claimant BERENICE BALLINAS
25 GOVERNMENT CLAIM
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 24031 El Toro Road, Suite 203, Laguna Hills, CA 92653.
On September 22, 2026, I served the foregoing document described as CLAIMANT BERENICE BALLINAS’ GOVERNMENT CLAIM FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 905 AND 910, ET SEQ. on the interested parties in this action as follows:
Theresa Bass, Office of the City Clerk
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Suite 217
Anaheim, CA 92805
(BY MAIL) As follows: I am “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Rolling Hills Estates, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
(BY EMAIL) I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
X (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the address of the addressee above.
X (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on September 22, 2026, at Anaheim, California.
RAYMOND WERT