City of Scottsdale
Attn.: City Clerk
Attn.: City Manager
Scottsdale City Hall
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Re: Whitmer v. City of Scottsdale and Gregory Caton, in his individual and official capacities
To whom it may concern:
I represent Lamar Whitmer in his dispute with the City Manager Gregory Caton and the City of Scottsdale.
Mr. Whitmer was appointed Chief of Staff to Mayor Lisa Borowsky on October 6, 2025. The Mayor approved the appointment of Mr. Whitmer. The position of Chief of Staff and his offer letter both stated that the Chief of Staff responds directly to the Mayor. The City Manager has no authority over the Chief of Staff nor the power to terminate him. The Chief of Staff’s job duties confirm he responds directly to the Mayor.
The City Charter similarly makes clear that the City Manager has no authority over the Chief of Staff or power to terminate him, because the Chief of Staff responds directly to the Mayor. City Charter Article 3 § 2(B); Article 2 § 16. Notwithstanding this, the City Manager set out to humiliate and terminate our client for reasons that will not withstand scrutiny, and without ther authority to do so.
Mr. Whitmer was placed on paid non-disciplinary leave starting January 14, 2026. He was “perp” walked out of the building and his office despite the Mayor not wishing him to be relieved of his duties and not wishing him to be removed as he was or terminated. During this time, the City and Mr. Caton conducted a so called investigation into various allegations against Mr. Whitmer that were pretextual and a sham. The investigation resulted in a pre-determined report the City and Mr. Caton shared with the public, including with Times Media Group and others, to humiliate and embarrass our client and place him in a false light and to defame him. It is clear the outcome was pre-determined and that it was based on personal animus Mr. Caton had and differences with Mr. Whitmer that were
____________________________________________________
Notice of Claim April 8, 2026 Page 2
not substantial or even justifiable. It was an attempt to place extremely minor matters as somehow important and/or to simply misstate facts and evidence for a pre-determined outcome to remove Mr. Whitmer. The actions in how he was removed from the building alone and his internment in his home are shockingly crude and actionable alone and an abuse of power to the extent any existed. The ham-handed way in which all of this was executed by the City through the direction of its manager is shocking. He will be sued both personally and in his official capacity if this matter is not settled.
On March 20, 2026, Mr. Caton alleged to terminate Whitmer in his position as Chief of Staff. Mr. Whitmer has been unable to execute his duties as Chief of Staff since that time and had to clear out his office just recently. He was terminated without sufficient grounds let alone authority and told he could not appeal.
Through the investigative report, the City and Mr. Caton claimed that Mr. Whitmer had been “insubordinate” because he did not follow dictates from Mr. Caton. Mr. Caton has no business interfering in the Mayor’s directions to her staff. The Chief of Staff does not report to the City Manager – and for good reason. The Manager does not dictate the Chief’s duties, responsibilities, or daily activities, nor does he have the authority to restrict the Chief from speaking with staff; the Chief responds solely to the Mayor. Specifically, Mr. Caton instructed Mr. Whitmer not to interact with any city employees, which makes it impossible for Mr. Whitmer to execute his duties as Chief of Staff to the Mayor and further her interests.
Through the investigative report, the City and Mr. Caton also claimed that Mr. Whitmer interfered in a recall petition, created an appearance of impropriety thereby, and used his position to influence a city process or decision. In particular, the City and Mr. Caton claimed that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) were contemplating a recall petition directed at Mayor Borowsky, and that Mr. Whitmer arranged a meeting between himself, the Mayor, the Mayor’s analyst Terrance Thorton, Len Sherman and individuals from the NAACP. Redacted in the public version of the report, we presume was Reverend Andre Miller. The City and Mr. Caton claimed that during that meeting, Mr. Whitmer attempted to influence the recall petition that the City alleges the NAACP was anticipating. This appears to also be the main reason the Manager had it in for our client. But, it is a distortion of the truth of what happened.
In reality, the NAACP was not questioned about the meeting as part of the investigation, nor were there any inquiries directed to the NAACP regarding the flow, tenor, or content of the meeting. The meeting was not political in nature, and Mr. Whitmer did not promise any favors, nor did he bring up the recall packet. The two people who attended the meeting and were interviewed both denied the meeting was political in nature. In fact, the NAACP’s chief issue was with Mr. Caton himself, specifically about his approach towards inclusion and culture within the City of Scottsdale and his shameful attitude he displayed. His actions should be called into question, were there any justice involved here, not Mr. Whitmer’s.
Notice of Claim April 8, 2026 Page 3
We believe the City and Mr. Caton are liable for the following. I. Mandamus to Reinstate Mr. Whitmer
Mr. Caton’s decision to terminate Mr. Whitmer was ultra vires because he has no authority to terminate the Chief of Staff of the Mayor. Mandamus is appropriate under Arizona Revised Statutes Title 12, Chapter 11, Article 2 to reinstate Mr. Whitmer.
-
Defamation and False Light
The City’s and Mr. Caton’s claims that Mr. Whitmer was insubordinate and interfered with a recall petition are false. as are numerous other allegations contained in their March 20, 2026 report. Because Mr. Whitmer does not respond to Mr. Caton, he cannot be insubordinate to Mr. Caton. Furthermore, the NAACP and the individuals who attended the meeting in question have made clear it was not political in nature and there was no interference with a recall petition. In both instances, the City and Mr. Caton knew the allegations they published were false. Mr. Caton’s actions in fomenting the report and publicizing it and the false statements therein to the public and media, were defamatory and false and malicious and done with an evil mind and for personal reasons as well as a dereliction of his official duties. He placed our client in a false light in doing so and damaged his reputation and ability to seek similar employment as well as to continue with the employment he had. Back wages and future wages are also sought as damages.
III. Breach of Contract and Bad Faith
The City has breached its contract with Mr. Whitmer by preventing him from executing his duties as Chief of Staff to the Mayor without sufficient basis to do so. The City and Caton acted in bad faith breach of contract by depriving our client of the benefit of his bargain.
-
Interference with Contract
Mr. Caton has wrongfully and tortiously interfered with the contract between Mr. Whitmer and the City and Whitmer’s reasonable business expectancies by purporting to fire him, interfering in and terminating the employment contract and relationship and expectation of future employment. The report issued against Whitmer is replete with numerous falsehoods that were solely to harm Whitmer and cause his termination on baseless grounds and/or insufficient grounds that did not support termination and were unusual and designed to interfere also in the relationship Whitmer had with the Mayor.
-
Due Process under the Federal Constitution
Mr. Whitmer alleges a § 1983 claim for protected liberty interests under the stigma-
Notice of Claim April 8, 2026 Page 4
plus doctrine. Cox v. Roskelley, 359 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004). The City and Mr. Caton publicly disclosed stigmatizing information regarding the reasons for Mr. Whitmer’s termination without providing a name-clearing hearing.
In addition to the above, the City and Mr. Caton may be liable for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
*********
As required by statute, Mr. Whitmer states his willingness to settle his claims against the City described herein for the sum certain of $1,500,000.00. This sum certain accounts for his loss of employment as Chief of Staff to the Mayor, the adverse impacts to his reputation, future employment, emotional harm, and anticipated attorneys’ fees. This offer will remain open pursuant to the requirements of statute.
Very sincerely,
Dennis I. Wilenchik, Esq.