A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has ordered Melanie McDade-Dickens, a former top aide to Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts Jr., to pay $217,404 in sanctions over missing records in her lawsuit against the city.
While the ruling does not dismiss the case, it prevents McDade-Dickens from introducing new evidence related to her claim that she was terminated in retaliation for ending her personal relationship with the mayor.
City’s Justification for Termination
The City of Inglewood argues that McDade-Dickens was dismissed for multiple policy violations, including:
- Manipulating city payroll records
- Creating a position for a non-existent employee
- Misusing city resources for a home loan application
Attorney Mira Hashmall, representing the city, described the decision as a serious setback for McDade-Dickens’ case, emphasizing that the judge also found evidence of perjury and document destruction on her part.
Legal Team Pushes Back
McDade-Dickens’ attorney, David Miller, criticized the court’s decision and vowed to challenge it. He contends that the ruling does not impact the core allegations against Butts, maintaining that his client was subjected to workplace retaliation after ending a private relationship with the mayor.
McDade-Dickens, once a senior city staffer, was let go in 2019, about a year after she and Butts severed ties. She contends that after their relationship ended, she experienced a hostile work environment, including removal from key projects and public reprimands.
The case has gone through multiple legal hurdles, with an earlier court ruling dismissing a sexual harassment claim due to filing deadlines. However, her legal team insists that proving a hostile workplace remains crucial to supporting her broader claims of retaliation and misconduct.
Future of the Case
McDade-Dickens had previously sought $65 million in a proposed settlement. With her legal team pushing forward, the case remains active, drawing continued attention due to the high-profile individuals involved.
Despite the court-imposed sanctions, her attorneys maintain confidence in their argument that her firing was retaliatory rather than procedural.
