More than three years after Fletcher admitted engaging in what he called "consensual interactions" with Figueroa while serving as both a San Diego County Supervisor and chairman of the MTS Board, the taxpayer-funded transit agency asked Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner to make Figueroa personally responsible for $683,556 in attorney fees and another $92,387 in litigation costs, totaling $775,943. After hearing arguments Friday, August 28, Braner indicated he would not grant MTS the attorney fees it requested based on the case presently before him, but will defer a final ruling until Figueroa's pending appeal is resolved.
The development represents an important distinction in litigation where Figueroa has suffered significant defeats. MTS prevailed against her at the trial-court level, and her remaining claims against Fletcher were later dismissed as a sanction for serious discovery violations, but Braner has now indicated that losing those cases does not mean Figueroa's lawsuit against MTS was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless or that the proceeding was brought in bad faith.
Figueroa was fired from her job as an MTS public relations specialist in February 2023 and sued the agency and Fletcher the following month, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and sexual assault, among other claims. Fletcher denied harassment and assault but acknowledged having what he characterized as consensual interactions with Figueroa outside his marriage, and the ensuing scandal culminated in his resignation from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and effectively ended what had been a prominent political career.
Braner ruled in August 2025 that MTS had demonstrated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing Figueroa and that the agency neither knew nor should have known about Fletcher's alleged conduct before terminating her. The court also found that Fletcher did not supervise Figueroa or possess supervisory authority over her.
Figueroa's remaining litigation against Fletcher ended days later when Braner imposed terminating sanctions after finding serious discovery violations involving missing, deleted or altered evidence. The court described the conduct as "rampant and willful spoliation of evidence" and concluded a fair trial was no longer possible, and Figueroa is appealing the rulings against both MTS and Fletcher.
Those victories provided the foundation for MTS to seek reimbursement of its litigation expenses from Figueroa personally. But prevailing against an employee in an employment discrimination case does not automatically entitle an employer to recover its attorney fees, and Friday's hearing reinforced the significant difference between winning a case and establishing that it should never have been brought.
Under the legal standard applicable to Figueroa's employment discrimination claims, a prevailing defendant cannot recover attorney fees merely because the plaintiff loses. The court must determine that the action was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless when brought, or that the plaintiff continued litigating after it clearly became so.
Braner indicated Friday that Figueroa's lawsuit did not satisfy that standard. He similarly did not agree with MTS's alternative contention that the proceeding as a whole was brought in bad faith or without reasonable cause.
The judge had already signaled his position in a tentative ruling issued before Friday's hearing. Although Braner emphasized that he stands by his previous rulings against Figueroa, he wrote that he disagreed with MTS that her employment claims were frivolous, unreasonable or groundless when she filed them and indicated they never clearly became so before he granted summary judgment to the agency.
Braner also questioned the practical purpose of pursuing such an extraordinary sum from Figueroa given her financial circumstances. The judge wrote that he had "little reason to doubt" evidence showing that she has no savings, earns $22 an hour and lives paycheck to paycheck.
"Consequently, the court struggles to understand how Defendant MTS expects to collect any of the nearly $700,000 in fees and more than $90,000 in costs it seeks from Plaintiff, or how a delay in ruling on the motion would exacerbate (rather than improve) this collections issue," Braner wrote.
Friday's hearing did not result in a final order denying the request because Braner will wait for Figueroa's appeal to be resolved before formally deciding the motion. The judge acknowledged that an appellate ruling could alter the underlying judgments upon which MTS's request depends, making a final decision on the fees premature.
The hearing is nevertheless complete, and Braner has now indicated how he would rule based on the case currently before him. Unless circumstances change following the appeal, the judge does not presently believe MTS has established the legal basis necessary to make Figueroa personally responsible for its attorney fees.
Following Friday's hearing, Figueroa provided SanDiegoVille with a new statement characterizing the development as vindication of her decision to pursue the litigation and sharply criticizing her former employer.
"Today's court opinion makes clear that I was honest in my claims against Nathan Fletcher and MTS from the start," Figueroa told SanDiegoVille. "MTS has been well aware of the trauma I endured at the hands of its former Chair and inside its headquarters. Yet for the last three years, I watched my former employer align itself with the man who abused his power over me—and try to destroy my life, my reputation, and most recently cause me permanent financial harm. They failed."
"The public knows only a fraction of what happened," Figueroa continued. "As my appeal continues, I hope the truth comes to light. Today's win isn't just about me. It's for the 1,200+ MTS workers and every employee who fears retaliation."
Figueroa's statement reflects her characterization of the underlying events and Friday's proceeding. Braner did not rule that her allegations of sexual harassment or assault were true, nor did he find that MTS retaliated against her by seeking attorney fees, and Fletcher continues to deny her allegations.
What Braner did indicate, however, is that the lawsuit MTS sought to characterize as sufficiently baseless to justify shifting hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses onto its former employee was not frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. He also rejected MTS's contention that the proceeding as a whole was brought in bad faith or without reasonable cause.
That distinction goes directly to the broader concern surrounding the agency's pursuit of $775,943. An employee deciding whether to report alleged sexual misconduct involving a powerful institutional figure does not make that decision in a vacuum, and the public record now shows that Figueroa accused the chairman of MTS's governing board of sexual misconduct, litigated her allegations for more than three years, lost at the trial-court level and was then pursued by her former taxpayer-funded employer for an amount that could financially burden her for years.
No court has found that MTS intended to silence Figueroa or intimidate other employees, and Braner has not characterized the fee request as retaliation. Whether the prospect of potentially devastating personal financial consequences could nevertheless have a chilling effect on employees considering whether to report alleged harassment is a separate question, particularly when research consistently shows that fear of retaliation and professional, reputational and financial consequences already keeps many workers from speaking out.
The concern is particularly notable given how MTS itself responded when the Fletcher scandal first erupted in 2023. After Figueroa's allegations became public, the MTS Board unanimously directed agency attorneys to reject any request to defend or indemnify Fletcher and publicly declared that "Mr. Fletcher failed to act in good faith and in a manner reasonably believed to be in the best interest of MTS."
Three years later, the same public agency attempted to make the employee whose allegations helped expose the Fletcher scandal personally responsible for more than three-quarters of a million dollars in its legal expenses. After Friday's hearing, the judge overseeing the litigation has indicated that he does not presently believe MTS is legally entitled to the attorney fees because Figueroa's lawsuit was not frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.
The power dynamics surrounding the original allegations also remain relevant to the broader reporting question. Figueroa was an MTS public relations employee, while Fletcher was an elected San Diego County Supervisor and chairman of the MTS Board of Directors, the governing body overseeing the public agency that employed her.
The court has specifically found that Fletcher was not Figueroa's supervisor and did not possess supervisory authority over her. That finding does not alter the institutional positions the two occupied when their interactions occurred, nor does it resolve their sharply conflicting accounts of whether those interactions were consensual.
Research examining workplace sexual harassment has repeatedly identified differences in institutional power as relevant to whether employees believe they can safely disclose alleged misconduct. A National Academies study found that substantial power disparities can increase fear of disclosure and leave lower-status workers feeling they have fewer options for addressing alleged harassment, while retaliation can become more likely or severe when significant power differences exist.
A major U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission study similarly found that roughly three out of four people who experienced workplace harassment never discussed it with a supervisor, manager or union representative. Studies reviewed by the federal agency found that only 6% to 13% of people experiencing harassment filed a formal complaint, meaning the overwhelming majority did not.
The reasons documented by researchers include disbelief, inaction, blame, humiliation and ostracism, along with fears of professional retaliation and damage to careers and reputations. The EEOC report also cited research finding that 75% of employees who spoke out against workplace mistreatment experienced some form of retaliation.
Those findings do not establish that MTS's pursuit of attorney fees constituted retaliation or prove that any particular MTS employee has remained silent because of Figueroa's experience. They provide factual context for concerns about the potential chilling effect created when a public employee who accused the chairman of her agency's governing board of sexual misconduct is subsequently pursued by that agency for $775,943 after unsuccessfully litigating her claims.
That concern has also emerged from within MTS's own governing structure. San Diego City Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who sits on both the MTS Board and its Executive Committee, confirmed to SanDiegoVille that he had no role in the decision to pursue the money.
MTS legal counsel recommended that board members decline comment because of the pending litigation, Elo-Rivera said, but he provided SanDiegoVille with a broader statement about the responsibilities public agencies have toward employees reporting alleged sexual misconduct. His comments directly addressed the possibility that an agency's actions could discourage future employees from coming forward.
"I think it is incredibly important that all public agencies foster environments that protect their employees and never take actions that could have the effect of discouraging employees from reporting sexual harassment and assault," Elo-Rivera told SanDiegoVille.
Former California Assemblymember Lori Saldaña separately confronted the MTS Board about the fee request during public comment in July. She questioned elected board members about pursuing such an extraordinary amount from Figueroa given her financial circumstances.
"Are you aware that you're requesting a million dollars in legal fees from the woman who filed these allegations against former Chairman Nathan Fletcher?" Saldaña asked. "She is now working at a minimum wage job. There is no way that she is going to pay a million dollars in legal fees."
County Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe, another member of the MTS Executive Committee, has similarly said through a spokesperson that she was not involved in the decision to pursue the fees. MTS Board Chair Stephen Whitburn and Vice Chair Steve Goble have declined to comment, according to Voice of San Diego.
Those responses leave unanswered precisely who decided that MTS should attempt to recover $775,943 from Figueroa and what role, if any, its elected governing board played in the decision. MTS has declined to explain the decision because the litigation remains pending, although its attorneys have laid out the agency's position in court.
"Figueroa's allegations were unfounded, her termination resulted solely from her documented performance issues and there was no evidence to support her claims," attorneys for MTS wrote in seeking the fees.
There is substantial judicial support for MTS's position regarding Figueroa's termination. In granting the agency summary judgment, Braner found that MTS presented evidence demonstrating legitimate, documented reasons for firing Figueroa and that the agency did not know of Fletcher's alleged conduct before terminating her.
An outside investigation commissioned by MTS similarly concluded that agency officials did not know about Fletcher and Figueroa's personal relationship before her firing and that Fletcher was not involved in the termination. The investigation did not resolve the separate and disputed question of whether Fletcher sexually harassed or assaulted Figueroa or whether their relationship was consensual.
The broader litigation also never produced a trial or final merits determination on Figueroa's remaining allegations against Fletcher. In January 2025, Fletcher attempted to dispose of those claims through summary judgment, but Braner declined after concluding that disputes involving credibility and the weight of the evidence remained for a jury.
That jury trial never occurred. Seven months later, Braner imposed terminating sanctions after finding extensive discovery violations involving missing, deleted or altered evidence, concluding that a fair trial was no longer possible.
The discovery findings remain a significant part of the litigation and are among the rulings Figueroa is challenging on appeal. Braner has nevertheless drawn a sharp distinction between sanctioning litigation misconduct and determining whether the underlying claims were frivolous, explaining that the terminating sanctions were not an adjudication of the merits and therefore had little relevance to whether Figueroa's claims were frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.
That distinction became even more consequential following Friday's hearing. MTS prevailed against Figueroa, and Figueroa was separately subjected to the most severe discovery sanction available, yet the judge overseeing the case still indicated that he would not require her to pay the agency's attorney fees under the legal standards MTS invoked.
For MTS's approximately 1,200 employees, the practical question extends beyond which party ultimately prevails in the appellate courts. Employees deciding whether to report alleged sexual harassment or other misconduct involving powerful institutional figures make those decisions in an environment where extensive research shows fear of retaliation and professional, reputational and financial consequences already suppresses reporting.
They can now also observe what followed after one MTS employee accused the chairman of the agency's governing board of sexual misconduct: more than three years of contentious litigation, followed by an attempt by her taxpayer-funded former employer to impose nearly $800,000 in legal expenses upon her. The judge overseeing the litigation has now indicated that he does not presently believe the legal standard permitting MTS to recover those attorney fees has been satisfied.
Whether that sequence actually discourages any MTS employee from coming forward cannot be determined from this case alone. But the potential chilling effect explains why the agency's pursuit of the money has generated questions extending beyond whether MTS legally prevailed against Figueroa.
The decision-making process behind the fee request also remains unclear. SanDiegoVille has asked MTS who authorized the effort to recover $775,943, whether the full Board of Directors voted on or approved it, whether the Executive Committee was consulted and whether the decision originated with MTS management, its attorneys or another individual or body.
Those questions have taken on additional significance because two members of MTS's Executive Committee say they were not involved in the decision. SanDiegoVille has also asked whether MTS considered the potential chilling effect its pursuit of such an extraordinary sum could have on employees deciding whether to report alleged sexual harassment or other misconduct involving agency officials.
Friday's hearing leaves the fee request unresolved procedurally but substantially clearer. Braner is withholding a final ruling until Figueroa's appeal is resolved, but he has indicated that, based upon the case presently before him, he would not award MTS the attorney fees it sought because Figueroa's claims were not frivolous, unreasonable or groundless and the litigation was not brought in bad faith.
That conclusion does not vindicate every allegation Figueroa made, erase the court's adverse rulings against her or undo the serious discovery violations that ended her remaining case against Fletcher. It does mean that, under Braner's present analysis, losing her case is not equivalent to having brought a baseless one.
For Figueroa, Friday's development carries a broader meaning. She says the continuing litigation is not simply about whether she will personally be required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to her former employer, but about what other employees take away from watching the process unfold.
"Today's win isn't just about me," Figueroa told SanDiegoVille following Friday's hearing. "It's for the 1,200+ MTS workers and every employee who fears retaliation."
SanDiegoVille has contacted MTS legal staff and members of its Board of Directors seeking additional information regarding the decision to pursue the fees and will update this article if additional responses are received. MTS's $775,943 request remains pending while Figueroa's appeal proceeds, but the judge has now indicated that he would not award the agency its attorney fees based upon the record currently before him.
Originally published on August 28, 2026.
