UPDATED AT 1:45 P.M.

Seven weeks since stories about Harvey Weinstein in the New York Times and the New Yorker triggered a wave of sexual harassment allegations around the nation, California state lawmakers are on edge both about their pasts and what the future may hold.

Allegations about four named current and ex-lawmakers and a fifth unnamed one have been publicly reported. But lawmakers who faced past accusations of wrongdoing and thought they were past the risk of fallout could be in for a rude surprise if Assembly and Senate practices are changed and the results of previous disciplinary hearings and investigations are disclosed.

Going forward, all harassment allegations are going to be investigated independently – breaking with a system that long seemed to value keeping dirt hidden as much or more than having a healthy Capitol working environment. The Assembly will hold a hearing Tuesday on new policies and the Senate is likely to in coming weeks.

Four accused lawmakers identified; the fifth still not revealed

Here are the accused and where they stand:

Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, D-Pacoima. Bocanegra resigned Monday — a month to the day after the Los Angeles Times broke the story that Bocanegra had been secretly reprimanded in 2009 for an incident in which he allegedly groped and stalked Elise Flynn Gyore at a time when both were legislative staffers. Since then, six more women have come forward with allegations of improper behavior by Bocanegra. He initially said he would resign in September 2018 at the end of the next legislative session, but that didn’t placate critics who said he should quit now or be kicked out if he refused to leave. Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, had promised Bocanegra would be “immediately” expelled if an independent investigation confirmed the allegations against him.

Former Assemblyman Steve Fox, D-Palmdale. On Oct. 18, the Sacramento Bee reported that it had obtained a copy of a settlement reached in April in which the Assembly agreed to pay $100,000 to Nancy Kathleen Finnigan, who worked for Fox as legislative director in 2013, during his only term in office. Finnigan alleged Fox had exposed himself to her and then fired her when she complained about his behavior. Finnigan’s suit was filed in 2014, when she first publicly accused Fox of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Fox denied the allegations and dismissed her as a disgruntled ex-employee.

The political career of Fox, 64, who has worked as a teacher and lawyer, may not be over. His 2012 win of a long-GOP-held Assembly seat was considered flukish, and he lost by more than 20 percent to Republican Tom Lackey in his 2014 re-election bid. But in 2016, while Lackey defeated Fox again, his margin of victory was only 6 percent.

Assemblyman Devon Mathis, R-Visalia. On Oct. 20, anonymous allegations that had surfaced on a website run by conservative activist Joseph Turner claiming that Mathis had sexually violated a passed-out staff member were printed in the Fresno Bee. Mathis denied the allegations and on Nov. 15 was cleared by the Sacramento Police Department, which said detectives were “unable to substantiate” if a crime had occurred.

The Assembly Rules Committee, however, has hired a private attorney to investigate allegations of improper behavior, according to Mathis’ hometown paper, the Times-Delta.

State Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia. Starting with a Nov. 9 story in the Bee, three young women have come forward with allegations of improper behavior, including a 19-year-old intern hoping for a permanent job on his staff who was invited by Mendoza to come to the Sacramento-area home he lives in part-time to “review resumes.” The twist: Mendoza until recently shared the home with state Senate President Kevin de Leon, who denied knowing of any wrongdoing by his former roommate. Mendoza, like Fox, has denied wrongdoing. De Leon has not said what his intentions are if a pending independent inquiry finds the allegations against Mendoza credible.

The fifth accused lawmaker has so far not been identified. On Oct. 19, Sacramento lobbyist Pamela Lopez told CNN that a current member of the Legislature – a “big man” – had trapped her in the restroom of a Sacramento bar in 2016 and masturbated in front of her.

Lopez has been urged by activists to name the lawmaker but has so far declined to do so.

With a supermajority, Democrats would be able to increase taxes, override gubernatorial vetoes and send measures to the ballot without Republican support. Democrats need two seats in the Assembly and one in the Senate in order to hold a supermajority — both chambers are a must.

Holding in the Senate

Around 2 a.m., Republicans were holding their seats in the Senate. The biggest question mark was the Southern California seat held by Bob Huff, the termed-out, former Republican leader. However, Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang led Democrat Josh Newman, 51.6 percent to 46.4.

But Republicans were behind in their best chance to pickup in the Senate, in the seat held by termed-out Sen. Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge, where Mike Antonovich, a termed-out Los Angeles County supervisor, trailed Democratic former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino by almost nine percentage points.

Losing in the Assembly

In the Assembly, Democrats were ahead in a few competitive interparty races. In the Los Angeles South Bay, Republican Assemblyman David Hadley trailed the man he knocked out of office in 2014, Al Muratsuchi, by almost seven points.

In another rematch from 2014, Young Kim, the Orange County Republican incumbent, trailed Sharon Quirk-Silva by just a few hundred votes. 

Democratic challenger Sabrina Cervantes had a slight, two-point lead over Eric Linder, the Republican incumbent, in this south Inland Empire district.

But some Republican incumbents were holding their ground. In yet another rematch, this time in the Antelope Valley, Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey led Democrat Steve Fox, who Lackey bested in 2014 by 13 points. 

In San Bernardino County, Republican incumbent Marc Steinorth was pulling away from challenger Abigail Medina, a Democrat. Steinorth led by five points.

And Catharine Baker, the only Republican incumbent in the Legislature from the Bay Area, beat back challenger Cheryl Cook-Kallio by nearly a dozen points to retain her seat.  

The Baker seat was considered a the top target for Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount. In fact, President Barack Obama endorsed Baker’s Democratic challenger, Cook-Kallio, as well as three others: Newman, Medina and Muratsuchi. 

None of these competitive seats were called by the time this story was published, so the results may change. We’ll update accordingly. 

Editor’s Note: This story was originally published on July 19.

Republicans in the state Legislature are thought to have a challenging election cycle this year. The outcome in November will determine whether the GOP has enough seats in the state Assembly and state Senate to maintain relevance in legislative matters.

Many factors are contributing to the angst, not the least of which is that Donald Trump as the GOP nominee is a wild card. No one knows yet how the reality T.V. star and real estate tycoon will affect down-ticket races — although Democrats are anticipating it will drag down GOP candidates. 

Regardless of the top of the ticket, this year looks to be tough for Republicans — who are largely hoping to just hold seats — as presidential election turnouts are generally more favorable to Democrats, when the electorate becomes more diverse. 

Republicans need to keep Democrats from achieving a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and Senate to have a meaningful impact on state lawmaking. Dipping below that line would mean losing their ability to weigh in on tax increases, gubernatorial veto overrides and legislatively-referred constitutional amendments — their last remaining points of legislative leverage.

To stay above a superminority, Republicans can afford to lose only one seat in the Assembly while Senate Republicans can’t afford to lose any.

Adding intrigue is the fact that it’s not just a war between the parties. The relatively new primary system where the top two candidates advance from the primary to the general election regardless of party has pitted some Democrats against each other, largely playing out proxy wars from outside interests. Of course in some races, a few candidates are termed-out of one chamber and aren’t ready to go home just yet.

Here are some of the top races to watch:

In the fight of their lives 

Catharine Baker, an East Bay Area Republican assemblywoman, led the primary 53.2 percent to 46.8 percent over Democrat Cheryl Cook-Kallio, a former Pleasanton City Council member. Baker is a the only Bay Area Republican in the legislature, so her seat is important both functionally and symbolically. 

Baker narrowly won the open seat in 2014 by about three points, and this time should be close too. Democrats in the district have a 10 percent registration advantage, with 24 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In one of several rematches, Republican Assemblyman David Hadley faces Democrat Al Muratsuchi, whom Hadley booted from office in 2014 by only 706 votes — or about 0.5 percentage points — in this Los Angeles south bay district.

In the June primary, Hadley received only 44.6 percent of the vote, with Muratsuchi and another Democrat splitting the majority. Democrats in the district enjoy a nine percentage point registration advantage, with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference. Winning this seat was a major coup for the GOP in 2014, and retaining it would be as well.

Key holds

In the Antelope Valley, Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey faces a strong challenge from the man he unseated in 2014, Democrat Steve Fox (who used to be a Republican). In 2014, Lackey destroyed Fox by 20 percentage points. But in the June primary, Lackey advanced with only 48.2 percent of the vote; three Democrats split the rest. Democrats have a six percentage point registration advantage with 19 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In the north Inland Empire, first-term Republican Assemblyman Marc Steinorth of Rancho Cucamonga finished second of two candidates in the primary behind Democrat Abigail Medina, a San Bernardino City Unified School District board member, trailing by three percentage points. Democrats have a one percentage point registration advantage with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

And in the south Inland Empire, Republican Assemblyman Eric Linder — who is surprisingly supported by the SEIU, a formidable union — got only 45.6 percent of the vote in the primary with the rest split between two Democrats. In the general, Linder faces Democrat Sabrina Cervantes, the district director for Assemblyman Jose Medina. Democrats have a slight, two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

Former Republican Senate Leader Bob Huff is termed out and Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang is hoping to fill Huff’s seat on the other side of the rotunda. Chang faces Democrat Josh Newman — a political neophyte who runs a non-profit aimed at helping veterans find employment — in this Orange County race.

Despite superior name recognition, Chang — the only Republican in the primary — drew 44 percent, while Newman and another Democrat nearly evenly split the majority. Republicans have a one percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state a party preference.

Another rematch

Republican Assemblywoman Young Kim faces the woman she knocked off in 2014, Democrat Sharon Quirk-Silva, in this Orange County district.

Last cycle, Kim won by 10 percentage points. But in June, Quirk-Silva led the primary by 8.6 percentage points. And Democrats have a four percentage point registration advantage, with 23 percent of voters claiming no party preference.  

Competitive by chance

The race to replace the late Sen. Sharon Runner — the Republican incumbent from Lancaster — is wide open. Runner passed away in July, but had previously decided against running for re-election for health reasons (her second such decision). Runner won the seat in 2015 in a special election after Steve Knight won a Congressional seat. 

Republican Assemblyman Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita came in first in the primary with 46.7 percent of the vote over Johnathon Levar Ervin, an engineer and Air Force reservist, who drew 33.7 percent of the vote. Among four candidates, the results were almost evenly split with a slight edge to the Republicans, but voter registration in the district is closely split as well. Democrats have a two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

Republicans best shot to pickup

What would have otherwise been considered a noncompetitive Senate election to replace termed-out Democrat Carol Liu became competitive when longtime Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich threw his hat in the ring.

Antonovich brings strong name recognition and a vast fundraising network from his more than 40 years in elected office, but he has a tough path forward having only won 39.5 percent of the vote in the primary. The rest of the vote was split among Democratic candidates, with former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino coming in second. Democrats have a 14 percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state party preference. 

Dems v. Dems and the proxy wars

While this Silicon Valley election featuring two Democrats won’t affect whether or not there’s a supermajority, it may help fortify a group of business-friendly moderates. Incumbent Senator Jim Beall, of the liberal environmentalist ilk, is facing the more business-friendly Nora Campos, who is termed out of the Assembly.

This race is actually one of a few proxy wars between Big Environment vs. Big Oil, which have both spent considerable money in the race. Beall was a hair away from a majority of the vote in the primary.

So far Campos has stuck to the narrative that both Beall and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Beall supporter, have bullied her. Campos said de Leon tried to dissuade her from running (party leaders generally dislike having to spend money and energy protecting incumbents from members of their own party). And Campos said Beall attacked her husband through a third party — as they say, it’s complicated.

A moderate Democrat is under fire in the Inland Empire, as incumbent Cheryl Brown faces attorney Eloise Reyes in this competitive Assembly district. Environmentalists and unions dislike Brown and have already spent big money opposing her through the primary, while Big Oil and charter schools have spent more than a half million dollars in support of Brown.

But surprisingly, word leaked that Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon — a powerful environmentalist — would be endorsing Brown. It’s unclear if this will have any effect on the race. 

In the primary, Brown received 44.1 percent of the vote to Reyes’ 35.6 percent. The Republican challenger received 20 percent of the vote, and how that’s divvied up could decide the race.

For 26 days, Lancaster council member Ron Smith, a Republican, was an Assemblyman-elect, that is until the very last votes were counted in Los Angeles County on Sunday and by 145 votes Smith lost his seat to Democrat Steve Fox.  Smith came out of election night several thousand votes ahead but a huge glut of late provisional ballots cost him the seat.  “There is a political group that has learned how to manipulate the election by playing with provisionals,” huffed Smith.  He’s right; it is called the voters. …

Smith raised and spent about $285,000 on his campaign, but all of that was in the primary.  Once he was the only Republican in the runoff he coasted, assured of election in this “safe” Republican district.  And his opponent Fox, raised only $20,000 and loaned himself another $40,000 – he had no organized state Democratic support.

So what’s the problem? Well, over the summer local Democrats put on a big registration drive in this middle class district, as they did across the state and using the new online registration signed up a whole lot of new voters.

Wrong spot on ballot — and little active campaigning

In 2014, the Republican candidate — Palmdale Councilman Tom Lackey — trounced Fox by more than 20 percent despite continuing gains in Latino and Democratic registration. All he needed to do was run a competent campaign.

There was a heavy California favorite who lost in similar circumstances in 2014, however. This time it was a Democrat — was Raul Bocanegra, an up-and-coming Assembly member who was seen as a future party leader. The LA Weekly has the key details.

It’s easily the political upset of the year in California — Bocanegra, by all accounts California’s Assembly Speaker-in-waiting, every inch the Democratic Party establishment figure, upset by Patty Lopez, a mild-mannered LAUSD employee and political nobody born in Michoacan, Mexico, for whom English is a second language (she speaks with a heavy accent). 

Bocanegra finished nearly 40 points ahead of fellow Democrat Lopez in the June 3 primary. That’s the typical mauling of anyone who runs a campaign from their kitchen table.

He was so certain of his victory that Bocanegra spent only $15,000 on campaign literature promoting himself to voters during the runoff against her — a pittance in L.A. elections. …

Lopez, meanwhile, didn’t file a single campaign finance report until after the election, and it’s unclear how much money, if any, she raised and spent to get her name out to East Valley voters in the district that takes in gentrifying North Hollywood, working-class Pacoima, middle class Mission Hills and horsey Sunland-Tujunga.

So how did Bocanegra lose? The LA Weekly points out that the ballot in his district conveyed the impression that Lopez was the favored Democrat:

Notice how the first five races on the page are all Democrat vs. Republican races, and they all have the Democratic candidate listed above the Republican.

This is a bizarre coincidence – candidate ballot order is assigned randomly (at least it’s supposed to be) and Democrats do not get to be automatically listed above Republicans.

Now, look at the Bocanegra vs. Lopez race, at the bottom of the above page. It’s one of the few Democrat vs. Democrat races on the ballot, under California’s new voting system in which the top-two winners from the primary, even if they’re from the same party, face off in the fall.

And who’s listed in the first position in the race for AD 39, the position which up to this point on the ballot was consistently but inadvertently given to the Democrat, with the Republican continually listed in second position?

Patty Lopez is in the first spot.

This suggests that a good number of voters in the East Valley who were voting straight Democrat — and not really aware of specific candidates — may have automatically filled in the first bubble, for Lopez.

’80 percent of life is showing up’

There’s no doubt that this ballot prompted many voters to back Lopez. But if Bocanegra had campaigned and sent mailers and run even a semblance of a campaign, the word would have gotten out to enough voters that he was the incumbent — and one held in good regard by other local officials and Latino groups.

Instead, like Ron Smith before him, Bocanegra assumed his election was guaranteed, and lost to someone who will lose in 2016 and later be most remembered as the answer to a trivia question.

Morale of the story: As Woody Allen reputedly said, 80 percent of life is showing up. In the general election, Smith and Bocanegra didn’t bother.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

If that wasn’t controversial enough, now word has surfaced that the bill also included a hidden perk for electric auto maker Tesla Motors Inc.

According to a report by Juliet Williams of the Associated Press, an overlooked section of the bill included language to provide tax breaks to companies that manufacture batteries:

“The word ‘battery’ never appears in the bill’s language, but is referenced in an analysis prepared by the Senate Appropriations Committee dated July 3, the last legislative business day before the summer break and the same day lawmakers voted on it. The analysis said tax relief would be available to companies that fall under federal NAICS manufacturing code 3359, which includes ‘battery manufacturing’.”

That perk, signed into law on the 157th birthday of the company’s namesake, Nikola Tesla, is designed to persuade the company to build a new $5 billion manufacturing plant in California.

Reducing assessed value by $125 million

Under that neglected section of the bill, battery manufacturers would be eligible for a reduction in the assessed value of a qualified manufacturing facility.

“This bill would, until July 1, 2015, reduce the assessed value threshold for calculating the capital investment incentive amount from $150,000,000 to $25,000,000 and would define ‘qualified manufacturing facility’ to include, among others, facilities operated by certain businesses described in specified provisions of the North American Industry Classification System Manual,” the final version of the bill stated.

That language apparently baffled the bill’s author as well as Senate committee staff, who were unaware of its purpose.

“This tax credit is exactly what the aerospace industry needs to remain competitive for the next decade,” Assemblyman Steve Fox, D-Palmdale, author of Assembly Bill 2389, said of the bill’s purpose. He never acknowledged a second benefit provided to battery manufacturers.

The legislative process was described by one state senator as a “jam job.” State lawmakers weren’t given any information about the project, all while being told they needed to pass the bill before the summer recess. Only one committee analysis made reference to the obscure federal manufacturing code.

“The publicly stated intent of the bill is to support the aerospace industry; consequently, it is unclear why NAICS 3359 is also included,” that Senate Appropriations Committee analysis uncovered by the Associated Press found.

$420 million corporate tax break for defense contractors

Prior to the AP’s report, the debate about Assembly Bill 2389 focused on a special $420 million corporate subsidy to a joint partnership between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The companies are working to obtain a federal contract to build a fleet of next-generation stealth bombers.

Drafted at the governor’s behest, the tax break is available exclusively to “a major first-tier subcontractor awarded a subcontract to manufacture property for ultimate use in or as a component of a new advanced strategic aircraft for the United States Air Force.”

It’s written so narrowly that even other aerospace companies wouldn’t qualify. If Boeing and Lockheed Martin land the project, it could lead to thousands of quality jobs in California.

“This is a big roll-of-the-dice in a state that has been looking for ways to trim minor expenses to fund its many spending priorities,” wrote UT San Diego columnist Steven Greenhut.

Double benefit: tax credit and deduction

Not only does the bill offer special perks to favored companies, it also contains an unprecedented double counting of tax benefits. Those businesses will be able to receive a tax credit and deduction for the same qualifying act.

“This bill would allow a qualified taxpayer a double benefit: first, a deduction, and then a credit calculated based on the same wages paid by a qualified taxpayer for qualified full-time employees,” according to the Assembly floor analysis of the bill. “Generally, a credit is allowed in lieu of a deduction in order to eliminate multiple tax benefits for the same item or expense.”

As CalWatchdog.com’s Joseph Perkins has previously written, AB2389 is nothing more than government picking winners and losers.

“Lawmakers can debate the prudence of bestowing as much as $840 million in tax subsidies to two of the nation’s largest aerospace companies to bid on an Air Force contract,” Perkins wrote earlier this week. “But all can agree that, if the state is going to award tax credits, it should not pick winners and losers among competing companies.”

In the State Assembly, Democrats Mike Gatto and Mark Stone opposed the bill. In the State Senate, six Democrats — Noreen Evans, Cathleen Galgiani, Loni Hancock, Ben Hueso, Mark Leno and Bill Monning — withstood intense pressure from corporate lobbyists.

It passed anyway.

Known as the incumbent rule, derived from a 1989 article by Nick Panagakis, incumbents who poll under 50 percent are expected to lose late deciding voters. In recent years, data guru and FiveThirtyEight blogger Nate Silver has questioned the rule as it applies to polling. However, the 50 percent threshold still offers a guide to incumbents that must work in November.

Fox tops list of Democrats in trouble

Topping the list of seven Democratic incumbents in danger of losing their seats this fall is Assemblyman Steve Fox, D-Palmdale. The first-term incumbent barely eked out a victory in 2012 — only pulling ahead of his GOP opponent after late absentee and provisional balloting. Fox will face a tough challenge this November from Palmdale Councilman Tom Lackey, the top vote-getter in Tuesday’s primary.

Lackey’s first place finish is all the more impressive because two other Republican candidates were on the ballot. GOP candidates accounted for nearly two-thirds of all votes in a district that has a GOP registration of less than half a percent.

Earlier this year, a former employee of Fox’s law office alleged that the Democratic lawmaker forced employees in his taxpayer-funded state office to perform work at his private law practice. Fox denies the allegations and says he looks forward to clearing his name in court.

Los Angeles Democrats dogged by ethics issues

Fox isn’t the only Los Angeles Democrat to be dogged by ethics issues. Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, is currently under investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission for allegations of money laundering during his 2010 campaign. Hernandez finished first in Tuesday’s election, but was only 2,000 votes ahead of county probation commissioner Joe Gardner.

The 48th Assembly district is considered a safe Democratic seat, according to the ATC Partisan Index, which ranks districts based on their competitiveness in the 2014 election. Gardner, who also ran in 2012, has made Hernandez’ misbehavior a central issue in the campaign.

While a member of the Assembly, Hernandez was arrested for driving under the influence. He beat those charges in court, in addition to getting dismissed allegations of domestic violence filed in a civil lawsuit by Carolina Taillon.

According to the Los Angeles Times, “The lawsuit alleges that on one occasion, Hernandez told Taillon that ‘the Speaker of the Assembly had called a medical team to come to the building because defendant Hernandez felt like he was going to die after using cocaine.'”

Strong immigrant GOP challengers:  Young Kim, Pedro Rios

While some Democratic lawmakers are struggling by their own undoing, the re-election of Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, looks bleak due to a strong challenge in the 65th Assembly district. Small businesswoman Young Kim, a former aide to GOP Congressman Ed Royce, was the top performing candidate.

Kim also received more votes than any other GOP Assembly challenger in the state, garnering 55 percent of the vote in a Democratic district. “As many immigrant families did, my parents worked hard and struggled, but they also instilled in me the value of individual responsibility and living within a person’s means,” Kim wrote in the Orange County Register earlier this year.

A first-generation Korean American immigrant, Kim has raised nearly a half-million dollars from her network of supporters in Orange County. She’s also gained key support from legislative leaders who want to reclaim a seat once held by GOP Assemblyman Chris Norby.

Another GOP Assembly candidate with an immigrant’s tale is Pedro Rios, who illegally crossed into the United States from Mexico when he was 9 years old. “I remember walking quite a bit, and then a car picked me up,” Rios told the Bakersfield Californian in 2012. “It is a dangerous journey … I was scared.”

Below is the list of Assembly members, ranked by percent of Tuesday’s primary vote. Also shown is the number of votes.

Assembly District 36: Steve Fox

Assembly District 32 : Rudy Salas

Assembly District 61: Jose Medina

Assembly District 65: Sharon Quirk-Silva

Assembly District 57: Ian Calderon

Assembly District 48: Roger Hernandez

 Assembly District 66: Al Muratsuchi

The allegations are contained in a lengthy complaint filed last Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court by Kristina Zahn, who worked as a paralegal at Fox’s law firm and later as a scheduler in his taxpayer-funded district office.

The lawsuit also claims the Palmdale legislator committed “serial violations of California wage and hour laws,” failed to pay his employees minimum wage, and required employees at his law firm to “perform between 15 and 25 hours per week of free labor on behalf of his campaigns.”

‘Propelled into elected office thanks to unpaid work’

“Rather than hire campaign workers or solicit volunteers from the community, Fox was propelled into elected office thanks to the unpaid work performed by Ms. Zahn and other law office employees,” the lawsuit alleges.

Fox denies the allegations and says he looks forward to clearing his name in court.

“They’re meritless claims by a disgruntled ex-employee,” Fox, a first-term Democrat, said in a Thursday interview. “Nothing will ever be offered for settlement because I expect to litigate it out and win.”

According to Zahn’s lawsuit, Fox frequently prevented his employees from taking a full lunch break and that “a break that involved anything other than using the restroom was a luxury.” If the phones went unanswered, the plaintiff claims in her lawsuit, “Steve Fox would become angry and belligerent if a potential client called while everyone was at lunch and no one picked up the phone.”

In addition to no lunch breaks, Zahn claims that she was forced to work an average of 50 hours per week but was never paid overtime as required by state law. “Instead he paid her a weekly ‘salary’ of $461.54,” the lawsuit claims, alleging Fox treated her “as though she were exempt” from overtime regulations.  In some instances, the former employee claims she worked more than 60 hours, dropping her salary below minimum wage.

“But Ms. Zahn was not just underpaid,” the lawsuit claims. “She was also denied other basic rights afforded California employees.”

Fox allegedly used staffers for his own benefit

Perhaps the most damaging of the allegations contained in the lawsuit are claims that Fox used government employees both when he was on the board of Antelope Valley College and while he was in the Assembly to perform unpaid work on his behalf. When Fox moved from the college board to the Assembly, “Ms. Zahn hoped things would improve,” according to the complaint. “However, she soon discovered that, in addition to her numerous new duties that she had to perform as a State employee, Fox continued to expect her to perform law office work — this time for free.”

In her lawsuit, Zahn claims that she fielded client phone calls, prepared legal briefs and filed documents on behalf of law clients at the courthouse. In one instance, at Fox’s bequest, the district director of Fox’s government office instructed a state employee to complete a trial brief while on the government clock.

When an employee complained about the inappropriate nature of mixing Fox’s business with government work, according to the lawsuit, “Steve Fox said words to the effect of ‘Don’t worry about it. No one will ever find out.'”

“They are untrue,” Fox said, when asked specifically about those allegations. “There was no request to use public employees for my private law practice.”

Fox’s chief of staff discharged

According to the lawsuit, Fox’s first chief of staff tried to stop the inappropriate actions of mixing personal business with government employees.

“The Chief of Staff expressed concern about the law practice not being separate, and made comments to the effect that Steve Fox should ‘get out of the law office’ and ‘he shouldn’t be practicing law while he’s with the Assembly,'” the lawsuit claims. Shortly thereafter, the chief of staff was discharged.

Fox refused to speak about the circumstances surrounding the departure of his first chief of staff because “that’s a personnel matter.” He said that employees in his district office are not under his control.

“They were not my employees,” he said. “You would have to talk to the Rules Committee.”

The state Legislature is notorious for maintaining a “cloak of secrecy around misconduct claims” involving elected officials. “Lawmakers have repeatedly kept workplace misconduct claims secret, releasing only the settlement papers — and only when requests are made citing state records law,” the Los Angeles Times reported in 2009. “The agreements are not adopted at public meetings or included in public files, as other legislative business is.”

The allegations in the lawsuit could have proven damaging in Fox’s re-election campaign. In 2012, Fox was elected to the 36th Assembly District by a razor-thin margin of 145 votes. Republicans hold a slight advantage in voter registration and have made picking up the seat one of its top priorities.

Here is a link to the lawsuit filed against Fox.