Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Cummings Verdict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public speakers condemn city handling after $10 million verdict in Cummings case
Summary
At a special National City council meeting, multiple residents criticized the city’s handling of an employment harassment case that led to a reported $10 million jury award and urged the council to explain legal hiring decisions and how the award will be paid.
Public speakers urged National City elected officials on Thursday to explain the city’s legal strategy and financial exposure after what residents described as a $10,000,000 jury verdict in a harassment case identified in the meeting as Cummings (also variably spelled “Cummins” in the transcript).
The comments came during a special meeting of the National City City Council in which the city announced it would go into closed session to discuss two items, including “Cummins versus City of Nashville City,” a phrase used by the city attorney in the meeting. Residents had been listed to speak on agenda item 5.1, “existing litigation.”
Why it matters: Residents said the verdict signals both a financial risk to taxpayers and perceived failures in city leadership and legal oversight. Speakers pressed the council to explain who selected outside counsel, whether insurance will cover the judgment and whether supervisors knew or should have known about alleged misconduct.
Residents repeatedly tied the verdict to broader concerns about city ethics and management. “You’re not listening when the people bring problems to your attention. That’s why you lost a $10,000,000 case yesterday,” said Louisa McCarthy, one of the public speakers. Several other speakers asked similar questions about whether city supervisors knew of the conduct and whether the council had taken effective action to investigate.
Speakers named the case in several different ways during public comment. At the meeting’s closed-session introduction, the city attorney described the matter as “Cummins versus City of Nashville City.” Public speakers and an earlier agenda reference used the spelling “Cummings” and referred to the case as being against the City of National City.
Residents asked the council for transparency on the city’s choice of outside counsel in the matter. One speaker asked, “Explain the process utilized in selecting Devaney P. Morris to represent the city in this case. Where is the public record on that process?” Another asked how the city plans to deal with “the financial fallout” of the decision.
Several commenters also asked whether the city’s insurance would cover the judgment. “I hope that your insurance will cover it,” said a speaker who described prior experience as a city attorney and said large judgments can impose long-term financial burdens.
The council moved the litigation discussion to a closed session. At the closed-session announcement, the city attorney identified two items for discussion: an existing litigation matter (named in the transcript as “Cummins/Cummings v. City”) and a public-employee performance evaluation for the city attorney.
The meeting record available at the time did not include formal council action or a public accounting of insurance or fiscal offsets; council members did not announce any vote or direction in open session before recessing to closed session.
Closing note: Public speakers framed the matter as both a financial and ethical issue for National City and repeatedly asked for public justification of the city’s legal choices and for assurances about taxpayer exposure.
