Day 12 of SFMTA trial: After only minutes, jury awards zero damages in harassment case 

Read Mission Local often?

Help grow our newsroom, joining the 3,250 readers who support us by giving below.

Donate today!

On the 12th and final day of former parking control officer Elias Georgopoulos’ trial against the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, the jury disappeared into the deliberation room. They emerged just over two hours later, which had included their lunch break. It had only taken them minutes to decide, and without reviewing evidence. 

“Oh really, already?” the superior court clerk asked, speaking over a landline phone. “The jury has reached a verdict,” the clerk announced to a stunned room of paralegals and law students: Georgopoulos’ lawyer, Eduardo Roy, had gone to lunch.

“Is this rare?” questioned a panicked paralegal.

“Yes,” replied the clerk. “Definitely.”

When Roy returned, the jury unanimously ruled that Georgopoulos had, in fact, not been harassed due to his race, national origin or disability while working as a parking-enforcement officer at the SFMTA. 

Nearly four years ago, Georgopoulos filed suit against the city for the alleged harassment and discrimination he endured while on duty and in the SFMTA office. He alleges he filed numerous complaints against fellow officers whom he says targeted him for his race, height, and visible limp from rheumatoid arthritis.

As the trial raced to a close, a barrage of witnesses testified that Georgopoulos was, himself, infamous for harassing subordinates for years, with a penchant for targeting Black employees. On Friday, the jury found that no evidence supported Georgopoulos’ claims, and the city was not liable for any damages. 

“The SFMTA takes any accusation of discrimination extremely seriouslym and we welcome the jury’s unanimous verdict in favor of the City on all claims,” the SFMTA wrote in a statement. “Our agency is rooted in accountability, from delivering for the customers we serve to fostering a positive environment for our employees. We will continue to strive towards excellence every day.”

Roy previously said he was hoping for “millions,” but after a lengthy, often repetitive and emotional monologue of a closing argument, Roy’s final pitch proved unconvincing for the jury. 

Roy arrived  38 minutes late to the courtroom, without anyone being able to get ahold of him. The attorney, who had to leave court with an illness last month and, this month, alternated between sipping an energy drink and NyQuil straight from the bottle in court, silently walked through the courtroom in his sunglasses.

He stood at the podium, preparing himself for his last ditch effort to secure Georgopoulos “millions” in damages. 

In fact, he was not yet ready. After a brief discussion with his client and paralegals in San Francisco Superior Court Judge Daniel Flores’ office, Roy critiqued the placement of the superior court judge’s poster of Thurgood Marshall.

“It should be higher up,” said Roy, (one could only guess if this was in jest). His comment was unappreciated by Flores, who admonished Roy again, as he has many times over the course of Georgopoulos’ 12-day trial, including a mistrial.

“Thurgood Marshall is in my courtroom because I admire the man,” replied Flores, appearingly taken aback. “Any suggestion as to the otherwise is not welcome in my courtroom … And we don’t have time for this, anyway.” 

With that, Roy launched his final closing argument: He commenced on  an emphatic, and up-close-and-personal questioning of the jury on whether or not they believed Georgopoulos was harassed, and in his theory, whether Georgopoulos was targeted by Black employees. 

“This is a very uncomfortable conversation, because we are talking about race,” began Roy, who is Black. 

On May 17, Black parking control officer Sterling Haywood testified that Georgopoulos routinely yelled at and harassed Black subordinates, and that he often targeted Black women.

During Roy’s closing statement on Friday, he tried to convince the jury that it was Black employees who targeted his client, and that a Black manager favored them over Georgopoulos. 

“If I say he was focusing on Black employees and not everyone else, is that offensive? Is that politically incorrect?” Roy asked the jury. “The reality is, in life, it happens … People come in with their own prejudices. If I’m gay, I’m going to help gay employees. If I’m a woman, I’m going to help women employees.” 

During Haywood’s frank testimony on May 17, he alleged that the SFMTA is a racist institution, and that many of his complaints against Georgopoulos went unanswered. Roy ignored Haywood’s prior accusation that Georgopoulos unfairly targeted Black subordinates and went on to disparage Haywood (whom he accidentally called Sylvester) for his untucked shirt and “braggadocio” attitude.

Then, in a bizarre choice of words, Roy reminded the jury that Haywood had called Georgopoulos a “dick.” “Not a dickhead,” said Roy, “The whole shaft.” One juror held back laughter. 

Roy then began reciting a line of hypothetical dialogue, much of which neither Georgopoulos nor Roy ever said occurred at the SFMTA.

“I trust that none of you ever see a statement that says, ‘Fire that spic, he’s a Napoleon, why does he bother you so much, he’s like a little chihuahua nipping at my heel, he has to learn it’s English only around here … you only hate him because he knows the rules better than you do.’” 

While Georgopoulos accused a superior of calling him a “spic” and claimed he was harassed due to his height and for speaking Spanish in the office, no statement akin to the one above was ever entered into the court record. 

Roy began to get choked up as he went on. “He was labeled insubordinate because he demanded respect,” said Roy, emphatically, his voice cracking. For much of the rest of his statement, he stood a mere foot away from the jurors, making prolonged eye contact and singling out jurors from the stand.

“If you agree with that,” remarked Roy, gesturing towards city attorneys. “You agree with the government.” 

Roy, who had exceeded his time limit, ceded to the city attorneys, who began their turn at the podium. 

“Mr. Georgopoulos wants you to ignore his own behavior, his own conduct, and the evidence that was shown that brought you here today,” said deputy city attorney Nancy Harris.

A highly detailed slideshow was then presented to the jury, listing each piece of evidence submitted by the city and a timeline of events leading up to Georgopoulos eventually handing in his notice: Nearly two years after he left the SFMTA office for good following an explosive argument with the director of parking enforcement, Shawn McCormick, whom Georgopoulos alleges called him a “spic.” McCormick denied saying this. 

At the podium, Harris gave Georgopoulos the grace of “maybe” having believed that to be true, though he did not submit any evidence. “Maybe he believed that really happened,” mused Harris, “Or maybe not … but he has produced no evidence beyond his uncorroborated story.” 

As to whether Georgopoulos himself was targeted by Black SFMTA employees, Harris had a firm rebuttal. “I want to address Roy’s line of questioning that there was a conspiracy against Georgopoulos by Black employees,” said Harris. “That isn’t true, and the evidence shows it.” Harris went on, “Roy is asking you to disbelieve Black employees who appeared in the trial because of their race. I am sure you can see the hypocrisy in that.” 

Flipping through a slideshow of evidence that Georgopoulos had, in fact, routinely harassed subordinates and operated a mobile notary business without the knowledge of management, Harris then landed on one final question: Whether Georgopoulos had planned to quit his job all along.

He had taken a notary job the day he left the office for good, when he would have been scheduled to be working. An office manager from the platform Georgopoulos uses for his mobile notary business testified that notary jobs are scheduled days in advance. 

Harris theorized that perhaps Georgopoulos just wanted to have someone to blame. “It is clear that Georgopoulos is angry,” closed Harris. “Angry at the SFMTA, angry at McCormick, but frankly, I think he’s probably angrier at himself, and wants you to believe the city is responsible for the situation he finds himself in.” 

Given 15 minutes for a rebuttal, which Roy turned into more than 25, the plaintiff’s attorney  began rehashing what he said in his closing statement. He again recited the same hypothetical dialogue, apparently reading from the name notebook.

“Fire that spic, he’s a Napoleon, why does he bother you so much, he’s like a little chihuahua nipping at my heel,” Roy began. “If you heard that,” said Roy (which the jury had two hours ago), “Game over.” 

Roy then told the jury that the argument that Georgopoulos brought the lawsuit upon himself, was a “wife-beater mentality” and a “red herring.” At that, he was cut off by Judge Flores for already exceeding his time limit, but Flores allowed him to finish his line. Instead, Roy took that opportunity to introduce himself and his two paralegals to the jury, and apologized for not having done so before. 

The jury was excused to deliberate, though that didn’t last for long. Soon after, the plaintiff’s party held their breath as the jury’s verdict was read out to the courtroom.

Georgopoulos bowed his head and listened to the verdict. After the jury members were excused from the courtroom, Georgopoulos rose, turned to hug a paralegal, and silently exited the courtroom. 

With a sigh of relief, the jury filed in unison out of the courthouse for one last time.