Democratic Congressional candidate Val Demings is being sued by someone her campaign calls an ex-volunteer. Eleanor Gardner contends she was working on behalf of Demings and had an agreement to be paid $1,500/month for services rendered.
West Orlando News originally reached out to Demings’ campaign for comment back in April on the matter. At that time, attorney Michael L. Moore provided comment on behalf of Demings.
“Ms. Gardner has chosen to exercise a right that many Americans have exercised since our Judicial System has been in place,” Moore replied to West Orlando News on April 12th. “The merit, or lack thereof of her claim will be determined in due course as the small claims judicial process runs its course. The Chief Val Demings for Congress Campaign will not comment on the specifics of this pending matter, but will confirm that Ms. Gardner was in fact one of many volunteers with the campaign, albeit for a brief period of time.”
After reviewing records and emails related to the case, it did appear Gardner requested payment and a title from the campaign during a meeting with Val Demings and in several emails. However, it was also clear that Gardner never received written confirmation or any direct response to her request to officially join the congressional campaign as paid staff, not from Val Demings or anyone from her campaign staff.
For a few weeks, 74-year-old Gardner appears to have been the kind of campaign supporter any candidate would want. She was busy organizing new supporters, planning outreach to voters and setting up a church schedule for the candidate. But Gardner kept pressing Demings and campaign staff about payment for her work. On February 1st, the relationship finally soured.
“We have entered another month and you still have not kept your promises to meet,” Gardner said by email to Demings. “I first discussed my interest and concerns to you in December 2015. We were to wait until your manager came on board. She has been here for approx. 4 weeks and still no meeting or paycheck.”
“I think it best that I discontinue any further participation until such time that I find out where I stand and what my compensation will be now and forthcoming,” she added.
“As you know, I nor anyone from my campaign agreed to pay you for accompanying me to church (including your own) and sending emails,” Demings apparently responded according to copies of emails provided by Gardner. “My campaign has volunteers who perform these tasks and many others on a weekly basis.”
Demings did offer to refund Gardner’s $100 campaign contribution.
“If this is your decision, it indicates how you will respond if elected to the United States Congress,” Gardner responded. “It seems like your word means nothing. We are going to have to wait to see how this plays out. It was my hope that I would not have to take this matter any further, but it seems like I have no other choice. My discussions with you in this matter have ended.”
The legal challenge against Val Demings, not her congressional campaign, followed. In a hand-written letter submitted to the court earlier this month, Gardner went further. “Val Demings had no campaign before me,” Gardner wrote. “She only piggy backed on the efforts of other groups for appearances only. It is my opinion that Val Demings plans were to use me as long as she could. I am glad that I discovered the truth when I did.”
Demings’ attorneys argued that the plaintiff’s claims should be “rejected out of hand” because Gardner’s complaint shows she volunteered for the campaign, “which is a separate and distinct entity from the Defendant.”
“In the instant matter, the ‘Val Demings for Congress’ campaign is a separate and distinct entity from the Defendant,” Demings’ motion to dismiss stated. “As a result, the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim against the Defendant individually should be dismissed with prejudice as a matter of law.”
But Judge Martha Adams denied the motion to dismiss yesterday.
Three days before Judge Adams’ decision, Gardner wrote another hand-written letter to the court, this time upset with Adams’ judicial staffer Laurie McGee. “When I asked Ms. McGee why she stopped the ‘Default Judgement’ without referring the matter to Judge Adams, she said she did after speaking with all parties concerned. This is not true,” Gardner wrote. “Laurie went on to say that if I had any more questions, that I should speak with an attorney. This is Judge Adams case and I don’t feel that a judiciary assistant should be making decisions on her (Judge Adams) behalf.”
“Laurie then hung up the phone on me,” she added. “This was in very bad [illegible] and RUDE! I will await the decision of the Court on this matter.”
Now that the court has rejected Demings’ motion to dismiss, the next hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 22, 2016.
