In a lawsuit that has stirred controversy and captured public attention, Jovan Thomas, a former victims advocate with San Francisco's district attorney's office, is seeking legal redress after being terminated over an email that he claims was mistakenly sent. The contentious communication, which inquired about the color of District Attorney Brooke Jenkins' underwear, led to Thomas' dismissal on January 26th and has since been a source of significant embarrassment and professional hardship for him.
Thomas asserts that the email, which quickly went viral on social media platforms, was intended as a private joke to lift the spirits of a fraternity brother mourning his father's death. However, this attempt at humor took an unintended turn when Thomas accidentally hit "reply all" to a calendar invitation from Jenkins, broadcasting the message not only to Jenkins but also to the entire staff of the district attorney's office.
The fallout from this incident was swift. Jenkins' office publicly denounced the email as "misogynistic behavior," firmly stating that it breached their code of conduct. Despite Thomas' subsequent apology and explanation via another office-wide email, wherein he expressed regret and clarified the email's intended recipient and nature, his employment was terminated by Richard Ng, director of human resources for the District Attorney's office.
Compounding Thomas' challenges are allegations that his firing was not solely based on the controversial email but also influenced by previous accusations against him. In 2018, Thomas faced legal action when a woman known only as Jane Doe accused him of sexual misconduct—a case that was later dismissed with Thomas being exonerated and no liability found against the county.
Represented by attorney R. Michael Lieberman, Thomas is now suing for defamation among other charges against Jenkins, the city and county of San Francisco, and several individuals associated with the district attorney's office. His legal team contends that there was no basis for anyone who received the ill-fated email to believe it was anything other than an unfortunate mistake. They further allege that officials from the D.A.'s office exacerbated Thomas' situation by sharing details of both this incident and his past legal challenge with members of the press.
As this legal battle unfolds in court—where San Francisco’s city attorney's office has pledged to mount a vigorous defense—the case raises complex questions about privacy, workplace conduct, and digital communication mishaps in our increasingly connected world.
Thomas asserts that the email, which quickly went viral on social media platforms, was intended as a private joke to lift the spirits of a fraternity brother mourning his father's death. However, this attempt at humor took an unintended turn when Thomas accidentally hit "reply all" to a calendar invitation from Jenkins, broadcasting the message not only to Jenkins but also to the entire staff of the district attorney's office.
The fallout from this incident was swift. Jenkins' office publicly denounced the email as "misogynistic behavior," firmly stating that it breached their code of conduct. Despite Thomas' subsequent apology and explanation via another office-wide email, wherein he expressed regret and clarified the email's intended recipient and nature, his employment was terminated by Richard Ng, director of human resources for the District Attorney's office.
Compounding Thomas' challenges are allegations that his firing was not solely based on the controversial email but also influenced by previous accusations against him. In 2018, Thomas faced legal action when a woman known only as Jane Doe accused him of sexual misconduct—a case that was later dismissed with Thomas being exonerated and no liability found against the county.
Represented by attorney R. Michael Lieberman, Thomas is now suing for defamation among other charges against Jenkins, the city and county of San Francisco, and several individuals associated with the district attorney's office. His legal team contends that there was no basis for anyone who received the ill-fated email to believe it was anything other than an unfortunate mistake. They further allege that officials from the D.A.'s office exacerbated Thomas' situation by sharing details of both this incident and his past legal challenge with members of the press.
As this legal battle unfolds in court—where San Francisco’s city attorney's office has pledged to mount a vigorous defense—the case raises complex questions about privacy, workplace conduct, and digital communication mishaps in our increasingly connected world.
