August 19, 2026 · 2,395 words · 13 speakers · 81 segments
The committee will come to order. Please call the roll. Representative Camacho?
Here.
Senator Carson?
Excused.
Senator Gonzalez?
Excused.
Representative Joseph. Right here.
I'm here now. It's Senator Carson. I was on mute. I couldn't figure it out. Welcome. Can you hear me? We can hear you. All right.
Representative what? Excuse. Senator Roberts?
Here.
Representative Soper?
Here.
Senator Wiseman?
Good afternoon.
Madam Vice Chair?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair?
Here.
All right, members. Hello again. We have more litigation to discuss, so exciting stuff. I do just want to note at the top, this is along the lines of matters that we've considered and already ruled that members should have an attorney. So I think there's analogy here. I do not want to talk about any specifics. and if we do talk about specifics, leaving the door open for that, I would like a discussion on if we should go into executive session to do so. But before we discuss any of that as a committee, I'm going to pass it to Director DiCecco and Deputy Director Doerr.
Director DiCecco. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the committee, for coming today on such short notice that we consider the retention of counsel for the legislative defendants named in the recent lawsuit of Chick v. Leader McCluskey and Duran. With me today is Deputy Director Mike Doerr, and I'm going to turn it over to Mike to describe a little bit about the case to help provide a framework for your discussion.
Director Doerr. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Michael Doerr, the Office of Legislative Legal Services. I'm going to start with a brief description of the case. We did provide you with a copy of the complaint, so I will be brief. This suit is brought by a former aide of Representative Leader against Representative Leader and the Speaker and the House Majority Leader. The complaint alleges that Representative Leader forced the plaintiff to resign from her aid position based on her treatment of her and how she handled the plaintiff's hours in payment. The claims against representative leader are for First Amendment and inalienable rights retaliation. And there's also the allegations against the speaker and majority leader. And those are related to their role as leaders of the Democratic House caucus that ostensibly oversees the employment of legislative aides. The complaint alleges that they created a work environment for AIDS that led to the alleged mistreatment and that there was a lack of a centralized HR system that made it impossible for AIDS to receive the necessary assistance with employment matters when they came up. The claims against the Speaker and Majority Leader allege due process violations based on the work conditions for House AIDS.
Director DeCecco. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Mike. So the next question just is to bring us back to ground the committee, we're in the statutory authority, which is section 231001. And again, this permits you to provide, to retain legal counsel for in all actions and proceedings in connection with the performance of the powers, duties, and functions of the members. In this case, you know, members have legislative aides in accordance with Joint Rule 39. The purpose of that role is in order to provide staff services to individual members of the General Assembly to assist them in the performance of their legislative duties and functions It also provides that aides shall be hired by each member through the office of the Senate secretary and the office of the chief clerk and the aides serve at the pleasure of the members. The role of the aide is to assist the members with their legislative work, and it seems that likewise the supervision of those aides by the members is part of the legislators' duties and functions. So for representative leader, this lawsuit was an action brought in connection with the performance of that supervision or those duties and functions. And therefore, it seems to fit under the statutory authority. And I would recommend retention of counsel. Likewise, the claims against the Speaker or Majority Leader, I think maybe in the first two may have also been made against the Speaker or Majority Leader, because I think it was all defendants. That, again, to the extent it relates to aides, would likewise include them. And it also seems to relate to their positions as the Speaker and the majority leader, as Mike said, that due process for failing to sort of establish due process in the system that oversees those aides. So that likewise seems part of their powers, duties, and functions, and therefore retention of counsel seems appropriate, and I would likewise recommend retaining counsel in this case. Now, as part of this meeting, we also went to our roster of attorneys, and we solicited three different attorneys from the COLE's pre-approved roster. Two of those were interested in representing the legislative defendants, and I'm going to turn it back to Mike to describe those two. Thank you.
The two attorneys interested in this case, first is Eric Motz. He is currently a solo practitioner who previously worked for Hogan-Lavelles and Dorsey Whitney. And when he was at Hogan-Lavelles, he handled employment matters as a part of his practice there, and he has handled employment matters as part of his current practice as well. Although he did, in talking to him, mention that although there's an employment component to this case, he also felt that this is really also more of a civil rights case because the claims are couched in constitutional violations as opposed to statutory employment discrimination or more normal employment matters. But he's still completely comfortable with handling the case and has handled similar cases with those types of claims as well. and he has represented the General Assembly in the past, including one matter involving Frank Sturgill. The other attorney that we're recommending today is Mark Gruskin at Rec. Cornfield. He's represented the GA in a number of matters over the years, and he has a lot of experience working with the General Assembly and also has a lot of practical knowledge of the General Assembly and its workings. So those are the two attorneys that we are recommending today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, the two identified attorneys will still be subject to the member's selection, correct? Are we just authorizing them to select between these two or directing counsel that they may have?
So thank you for that, Rep Camacho. And Rep Director DiCecco will probably comment more on this. To me, I think it's relevant that Eric Mautz has done employment law type litigation. and we have had Mark Gruskin do a lot of stuff for the General Assembly. I see the facts as different to the majority leader and the speaker as they were not in direct supervision. And so what I was going to propose and open up for conversation is Mr. Mautz being assigned to representative leader and Gruskin being assigned to the majority leader and speaker. Director Dusheko.
Thank you. Professor McMacchia, did you want to comment?
I'll wait until you finish your remarks.
Okay. Well, in reviewing the case, Eric mentioned, Mr. Meltzer mentioned that he thought there could be a potential conflict of interest. And based on my reading of the complaint, I think that is a possibility, although perhaps the clients could waive it with informed consent. However, it does, as the chair had indicated, the defenses could be different based on the nature of the claims against the leaders, the speaker and majority leader versus the one against the representative leader. So in that instance I do think there could be in the best interest of all of the clients to have an attorney who can focus on their part of the case or the defenses that work best for them for representative leader you know and separately for the majority leader and the speaker And in that case I agree I think that his experience with employment law likewise would be, I would recommend that Eric be the one who represents representative leader and that Mr. Cruz can represent the speaker and majority leader. I did speak with all of the legislative defendants, and they consented to that representation as well.
Rob Camacho. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for that clarification. I guess I'm sensitive to the fact that I'm not questioning anybody's credentials because I think they're both very qualified counsel. It's more of the defendant's choice, and it sounds like that has already been worked out, so I have no further questions.
Great. Mr. Doar, Director DeCecco, anything further?
No, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Committee members, at this point, I am ready to entertain motions that would assign counsel, as I described. We would do two separate motions, but first, I do see Rep Soper's hand. Rep Soper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just had a question for Mr. DiCecco. So in terms of, I mean, I know you just said you talked to the speaker and majority leader about having the same attorney represent them, but there also is the potential that they could have slightly differing defense strategies and each would be entitled to their own separate legal counsel really at that point. Did you contemplate the fact that each of them might want to have separate legal counsel?
Director Jacekow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Soper, I did not. I did not. I could ask them. I always actually think that ultimately that question of whether there's a conflict is the ethical obligation of the attorney who's going to be representing them. And based on my initial reading of the complaint, I did not see there to be a potential conflict of interest between their two defenses. But I'm confident that if Mr. Grusin, in representing them, thought that was to be the case, that he would identify that and, if possible, get their informed consent. And if not, that he would indicate that he could not represent both of them, and then we may be back to the committee. I would say typically it's not when we've had legislative defendants who have had similar claims made against them that they've had a single representation. So, for example, we had five members who were sued in the case we discussed last week where we appointed counsel for the brief in opposition to the writ where they were all represented by Ed Ramey and Martha Tierney. So all five of defendants had the same case, even though some members were the members were the chairs of the committee. Some members were members of the committee and one member was a sponsor. So it's it's not uncommon for us to start with a legislative more than one legislative defendant having a single representation. And then it's my expectation that as part of their ethical obligation, the person representing them would would ensure that there is no conflict.
No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last week when we met, the committee voted not to retain counsel for an individual related to a harassment complaint, whether complainant or respondent. In part, in large part, it felt to me because the underlying complaint was as relates to harassment, and there was a view that that is not something that the private sector provides counsel for and therefore should not be something that the General Assembly should provide counsel for. I'm wondering what the committee's stance is as to that point vis-a-vis this particular issue or case before us.
Thank you, Representative Luck.
I cannot speak for everybody. What I can say for myself, because I was one of the people that raised that, is the question before us was whether we would grant an anonymous person and an anonymous workplace harassment procedure counsel. My view about that being typical and in a workplace was that that was our internal procedure That it wasn a court of law It wasn a procedure that was going to be heard by a judge and view those things as distinct for that reason There are other analogies that I could make, but as one of the people that spoke up on that, that's the key distinction to me. Rep luck.
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I didn't mean to keep my hand up. I appreciate that as a distinction in your mind. I see it differently, but it's neither here nor there for this present moment.
Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Vice Chair Frizzell.
Sorry. I need to unmute myself. Would you like me to go ahead and make a motion or motions?
Please.
All right. Committee, I move that the committee retain Eric Mautz and his firm, the law offices of Eric J. Mautz, LLC, for the defense of Representative Sheila Leder in the lawsuit filed against Representatives Leder, McCluskey and Duran, filed in the Denver District Court.
Second.
Okay, that is a proper motion. Please call the roll. Representative Camacho?
Yes.
Senator Carson?
Yes.
Senator Gonzalez?
Excuse.
Representative Joseph?
Rep. Joseph, you are muted if you're trying to vote.
How about now? Can you hear me? Yes.
We can, and your yes vote is noted.
Representative Luck?
I'm invoking 21C.
Excuse. Senator Roberts?
Aye.
Representative Soper. Yes. Senator Wiseman. Yes. Madam Vice Chair. Aye. Mr. Chair. Yes. Okay. On a vote of eight. Yes. Zero. No. Two. Excuse that motion passes. Vice Chair Frazell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I further move that the committee retain Mark Gruskin and his firm, RECT, Kornfeld PC, hopefully I said that right, for the defense of Representative Julie McCluskey and Representative Monica Duran in the lawsuit filed against Representative's leader, McCluskey and Duran, filed in the Denver District Court.
Okay, that's a proper motion. Please call the roll. Representative Camacho?
Yes.
Senator Carson?
Yes.
Senator Gonzalez?
Excuse.
Representative Joseph?
Yes.
Yes. Thank you, Rep. Joseph.
Yes.
We note your yes vote. Thank you. Representative Luck.
Abstain.
Senator Roberts.
Aye.
Representative Soper.
Yes.
Senator Wiseman.
Yes.
Madam Vice Chair.
Aye.
Mr. Chair. Yes. On a vote of eight, yes, zero now to excuse that motion also passes. Okay. We have no further business on the agenda for today, so the committee is adjourned. Thank you.
Thank you.