After a narrow majority of Costa Mesa City Council members abruptly fired City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison earlier this year, she brought a lawsuit against the city, claiming Brown Act violations and unlawful activity by the mayor.
She’s also claiming the city retaliated against her after she brought forward concerns of the mayor’s alleged illegal actions, like quid pro quo.
There have been few details offered to explain Farrell Harrison’s termination after a 4-2-1 closed session vote on May 6 ended her employment at city hall. At that meeting, Councilmembers Andrea Marr and Arlis Reynolds voted no, and Mayor John Stephens abstained from the vote.
[Read: Costa Mesa City Council Abruptly Fires City Manager]
In a July 7 petition filed with the Orange County Superior Court, Farrell Harrison claims the city failed to properly agendize two discussions regarding her employment during council meetings on April 15 and May 6.
She alleges the city violated California’s open meetings law, known as the Brown Act, by failing to properly alert the public about these closed session discussions.
Farrell Harrison is also claiming the city retaliated against her after she brought forward complaints about Mayor Stephens’ alleged illegal activity, including potential conflicts of interest, quid pro quo activities and gender and racial discrimination toward city employees, according to the lawsuit.
“Ms. Farrell Harrison was stunned by these events, as was her staff, who supported her efforts to elevate the discussion about these serious challenges with Mayor Stephens, and required that the behaviors discontinue,” reads the lawsuit.
“How the City moved from trying to solve a serious liability with Mayor Stephens’s potentially illegal activity to a public firing of its well-respected, accomplished City Manager has but one answer: the City retaliated against Ms. Farrell Harrison for her protected disclosures.”
Stephens did not return a request for comment for this story. The rest of the city council also did not respond to email requests.
The lawsuit claims that Farrell Harrison notified three city council members about her concerns regarding Mayor Stephens on March 28.
It also explains that she provided six members of the council with a 14-page complaint regarding potential unlawful activity by Stephens titled, “Formal Complaint – Mayoral Potential Conflicts of Interest, Illicit Interference, and Undue Influence in City Operations, Permitting and Contracts” on April 29 – a week before she was fired.
According to the lawsuit, the report was developed by Farrell Harrison and other city staff members based on their interactions with the mayor.
The former city manager claims the city’s first Brown Act violation was on April 15. Farrell Harrison is claiming the council unlawfully held a discussion about her employee performance review during a closed session item agendized as “Potential Litigation.”
A second Brown Act violation is alleged to have happened during the council’s meeting on May 6.
During the closed session at that meeting, one agenda item was listed as a “Public Employee Performance Evaluation” for the city manager.
Farrell Harrison alleges the city improperly noticed this item by failing to mention an employee dismissal or disciplinary discussion on the agenda.
“Further, the City’s notice of the ‘Performance Review’ of the City Manager was part of a deliberate intent to deceive Ms. Farrell Harrison, City employees, and members of the public,” reads the lawsuit.
“Ms. Farrell Harrison is informed and believes that the City Council deliberately described the May 6, 2025, Closed Session meeting as a ‘performance evaluation’ rather than a ‘dismissal’ to conceal the fact that certain City Councilmembers had engaged in serial meetings outside of a properly noticed City Council meeting.”
The lawsuit seeks a judge to rule on whether or not the city violated the Brown Act, which forbids serial meetings — meaning that decisions are daisy-chained together before an official vote.
It also asks the court to nullify the city’s action of terminating Farrell Harrison from May 6.
If the city doesn’t nullify Farrell Harrison’s termination, the lawsuit asks the city to instead produce all documents, reports, emails, texts and phone logs related to the closed session meeting where Farrell Harrison was fired.
The lawsuit also asks that all closed session meetings for the next three years be recorded with audio and video.
Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor. Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.