Former Port of San Diego Commissioner Sandy Naranjo is seeking more than $1 million in damages from the agency she once led, claiming unlawful retaliation that resulted in her removal from the board and serious damage to her reputation. Last month, Naranjo filed a tort claim with the port, alleging the agency violated her First Amendment and employment rights. The two-page form, obtained by the Union-Tribune through a public records request, is often required under California law as the first step in the process for asserting civil liability. The tort claim preserves Naranjo’s ability to sue the government agency should the matter escalate without an acceptable resolution. The claim, dated Nov. 5, states the Board of Port Commissioners for the San Diego Unified Port District falsely accused Naranjo of misconduct and pushed for her ouster, ultimately costing her more than $1 million in damages due to loss of income, and emotional and physical distress. “Naranjo was wrongfully removed from her position as National City member of the San Diego Unified Port District Board of Commissioners. The action was the result of unlawful retaliation. The port also engaged in defamation, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress by accusing Naranjo falsely of misconduct and seeking her removal from the port’s board,” the claim form states. The claim also identifies current and former port commissioners, as well as agency lawyers, as the individuals who caused the damages. “In response to your inquiry, I can confirm the Port of San Diego received a legal threat from Sandy Naranjo,” said Irma Rodríguez Moisa, a partner with the law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo and outside counsel to the port. “The port stands behind its actions. We will be addressing this threat in due course.” Naranjo’s lawyer declined to elaborate on the former port commissioner’s claims, beyond pointing to the chain of events that publicly unfolded in late 2023 and the first half of 2024. “As has already been reported in the press and in public statements, Ms. Naranjo credibly alleges that the port unlawfully retaliated against her for protected speech. However, as this matter has not yet been filed, it would be premature to discuss particular legal theories or possible remedies,” Adam Sechooler, a partner with Santa Ana-based AEMS Trial Firm, APC, said in a statement to the Union-Tribune. “Apparently unlike the port, it is not our intention to litigate this matter in the press. In addition, the port has asked Ms. Naranjo to delay filing her lawsuit, so that a resolution short of litigation may be attempted.” Formed by the state in 1962, the San Diego Unified Port District is a special district that spans 34 miles of coastline in five member cities: San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and Coronado. The special district is governed by the seven-member Board of Port Commissioners. Commissioners are appointed for four-year terms by their member cities and do not earn a salary. Naranjo was appointed by National City in December 2020. During her time at the agency, the environmental justice advocate and former union organizer sought to improve the agency’s air quality policies and pushed for changes to industrial operations on tidelands. In October 2023, Naranjo’s peers on the board censured her for misconduct following a confidential personnel investigation and report, which was later released to the public. The report, prepared by HR Law Consultants, found that Naranjo retaliated against the port’s top lawyer, Tom Russell, and accused him of corruption after he pressed her for information on a labor union consulting business not initially disclosed in required forms. Naranjo has maintained that she is a whistleblower, that the investigation was flawed and that the allegations of misconduct were not proven. The 2023 censure did not remove Naranjo from the board, but the action sidelined her from leadership roles on the board and appeared to render ineffective in her ability to advocate for National City’s interests. In May, National City Council members voted in a split decision to remove Naranjo from the Board of Port Commissioners. The tort claim was filed just under six months after the May 7 National City City Council meeting, which is cited on the form as the date of the incident. The form, however, identifies port board members and staff as responsible for the damages to Naranjo. Former Commissioner Rafael Castellanos and current Commissioners Frank Urtasun, Danielle Moore, Ann Moore, Dan Malcolm and Michael Zucchet are named alongside Russell and port attorneys, Rebecca Harrington and Simon Kann. “It’s wonky,” said Josh Gruenberg, an employment law attorney with Gruenberg Law who represents employees and reviewed the tort claim at the Union-Tribune’s request. Related Articles Business | This Coronado resort hotel is planning a $220M makeover. So what’s in it for locals? Business | Port buys Coronado Cays lease for $3M, kills controversial RV resort project Business | Balboa Park’s Botanical Building reopens after $26.5M restoration Business | San Diego abandons plan for new City Hall Business | Oceanside officials ‘unnerved’ by recommendation that the city is prime for North County growth Gruenberg said that if the matter escalates into a civil lawsuit, Naranjo will first have to establish that she was an employee of the port, which may be tricky because she was a board member and did not collect a salary. A judge could, however, determine she was an employee because she collected benefits, he said. “Assuming she can sue the agency, the tort claim mentions (nine) individuals responsible for the harm, but the reality is that National City made the decision to remove her,” he said. “It’s a tough case. She was removed for misconduct so she has to prove that the termination or removal was for an illegal reason … and that the stated reasons for removal are capable of being viewed with suspicion or doubt.” Typically, illegal reasons are limited to those where an employee can prove that he or she was discriminated against for a protected characteristic or retaliated against for being a whistleblower, Gruenberg said. Naranjo was previously involved in an employment law case against a former employer that was widely covered by local media outlets. In late 2016, Naranjo sued United Food & Commercial Workers Local 135 and the union’s then-leader Mickey Kasparian for gender discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination. A confidential settlement in that lawsuit was reached in January 2018. At the time, Kasparian was the subject of other lawsuits, including one involving alleged sexual assault. The lawsuits were all settled confidentially.