When things started to fall apart for Brett Watson in 2021 amid allegations of sexual harassment, he embarked on a campaign of denial, refusal and counter-accusations: denial that he’d sexually harassed a city employee; refusal to step down from city council; claims that he was the true target of harassment and discrimination at Arcata City Hall.

Watson.

It’s been a couple years, but Watson is still fighting the fight. He was again shot down last week when a California appellate court upheld the restraining order that prohibits Watson from entering Arcata City Hall and contacting four city employees. In his appeal, Watson claimed that the restraining order overextends the language of the law, is based on a lack of evidence and violates his constitutional rights. 

The City of Arcata sought the restraining order after a city-commissioned investigation concluded that Watson sexually harassed a city employee for nearly two years, and, when his harmful behavior came to light, created a hostile work environment that some employees said made them feel unsafe. Issued in March 2023 by the Humboldt County Superior Court, the “workplace violence” restraining order is nearly halfway through its three-year lifespan. 

The appellate court decision, issued on June 11, recounts the uncomfortable details of the years-long ordeal. Watson, who was a council member from 2017 to 2022, began to harass the employee in 2019 while he was mayor. Watson’s behavior included contacting the staff member frequently outside of work hours, making comments about his feelings for the employee that made her feel uncomfortable and “sick,” asking her for long hugs that were “creepy,” and threatening the employee’s job when she tried to set boundaries. In 2021, another city official witnessed Watson’s behavior and expressed concern to the staff member, who then reported Watson for sexual harassment and workplace violence. 

In the months that followed, the City Council passed a vote of no confidence in Watson, who voluntarily stepped down as mayor but stayed on the council. The City commissioned an investigation that sustained the harassment claims, which Watson insisted was biased. Following the findings of that investigation, the City Council stripped Watson of his committee assignments and created protocols to limit his access to staff, which he quickly broke, according to the appellate decision document. The City got a temporary restraining order against Watson in October 2022 prohibiting him from entering City Hall and accessing four employees. He was arrested within days when he cc’d one of the protected four in an email. 

The City sought a permanent restraining order, which involved a trial and was issued in March 2023 (permanent restraining orders, despite their name, typically only last three years but can be extended as necessary). By then, Watson was out of the political scene; he’d lost re-election in November 2022. 

Watson is not permitted to enter City Hall or go within 100 yards of the four protected people’s workplaces, homes or cars. He also can’t possess firearms throughout the duration of the restraining order. Watson could face a fine of up to $1,000 or jail time up to a year if he violates the terms. 

In his appeal of the restraining order, Watson claimed that the trial court misinterpreted the law, argued that there isn’t evidence to suggest his stalking behavior will continue, said that the protections for three additional people are essentially unnecessary and claimed that the restrictions from City Hall and city staff violate his constitutional rights. 

The appellate court struck down every argument.

Watson claimed that the trial court improperly inflated the Workplace Violence Safety Act to include emotional and psychological harm in its interpretation of “safety.” But the act defines unlawful violence as “any assault, or battery, or stalking” – and, the court held, Watson was stalking the employee.

To that point, Watson claimed that there wasn’t sufficient evidence of stalking. But the court identified “substantial evidence of stalking behavior,” citing incidents occurring outside of work hours and unrelated to work matters across the years-long fiasco, including Watson’s admission that he was “addicted” to the employee. 

Watson’s third challenge of the restraining order was that because he is no longer a city council member, there isn’t evidence to suggest he will continue to stalk and harm the staff member. The court noted that changed circumstances do sometimes warrant dropping a restraining order, but held that this is not one of those times. The court cited multiple occasions when Watson attempted to contact the protected staff members when the city-commissioned investigation was underway and he’d been asked to keep his distance.

“Given the extensive evidence of Watson’s obsessive conduct, his repeated tendency to push boundaries and his admission to being ‘addicted’ to [the staff member], substantial evidence supports the finding of a reasonable likelihood the stalking will recur,” the decision reads.

Watson also argued that the trial court abused its discretion by including the three additional protected persons on the restraining order, claiming that his interactions with those people didn’t indicate a reasonable threat of violence. 

But the court again disagreed. “Watson had multiple interactions with each employee and engaged in a course of conduct that resulted in the employees fearing for their safety,” the report reads. 

“The court need only find unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence against one employee […] and may then exercise its discretion, on a showing of good cause, to include other employees in the protective order without a separate finding of unlawful violence or credible threat of violence.”

Finally, Watson claimed that the restraining order violates his rights to free speech, freedom of association and civic engagement because he is not allowed to enter City Hall or contact the protected employees. However, Watson couldn’t back up exactly how these rights are violated by the restraining order, and so the appellate court considered the argument forfeited. Even so, the court pointed out that Watson can provide public comment during city council meetings via Zoom. 

So that’s that for Brett Watson, for now. The restraining order will expire in March 2026.

###

PREVIOUSLY: