More than 150 workers at the Salinas courthouse have filed a lawsuit against contractors allegedly responsible for releasing asbestos into their workplace during an 18-month period beginning February 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that project managers for Nova Partners Inc. and Skanska USA Building Inc. intentionally created a false paper trail of e-mails to conceal that they were conducting demolition work without a required asbestos consultant, and despite dire warnings that the work would expose workers to potentially lethal levels of asbestos.

The complaint was filed days shy of Saturday's two-year anniversary of a massive release of asbestos on the first floor of the court's north wing, which is being renovated to add courtrooms. The suit asks unspecified damages for the plaintiffs' emotional distress "from a reasonable fear of developing cancer and other serious illnesses as a result of the exposure to asbestos and other toxic materials."

Among the plaintiffs are Judge Jose Angel Velasquez, numerous court bailiffs and clerks, administrative supervisors and managers, and several defense and prosecuting attorneys. The lawsuit was filed on their behalf Wednesday by law firms in Fresno, San Jose and Oakland.

The complaint follows an earlier lawsuit by Judge Albert Maldonado, his bailiff and a worker who allege they were sickened by asbestos, mold and other substances released into the ventilation system during construction of the court's north wing. At least two Monterey County Jail inmates, who made frequent courthouse appearances, have filed suits.

Tom Crane, spokesman for Skanska, which quit the project in December, said the company hadn't been served with the new lawsuit. After quickly reviewing a copy provided by The Herald, he said it appeared "meritless."

Nova officials did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

The new complaint lays out in chronological order essentially the same facts considered by a Monterey County grand jury that indicted Nova, Skanska and project managers Seth Henderson and Anthony Jones on March 6, 2006. That indictment, brought by the state Attorney General's Office, ended with the two companies pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges in November and January and being ordered to pay more than $940,000 combined in fines and investigative costs.

Charges against Henderson and Jones were dismissed during those plea negotiations to clear the way for their potential testimony in the case. The latest lawsuit, however, paints a stark picture of their alleged complicity in arranging the work that caused the release of the asbestos.

Money running out

According to the lawsuit, which quotes liberally from grand jury testimony, the chain of events began in December 2004 when Henderson informed the project's asbestos consultant, Glynn Nystrom of ATC Associates, that funds for his services would dry up at the end of that month.

The lawsuit alleges that Henderson and Jones subsequently "made false statements and prepared false writings" meant to convince others on the job that work was still being supervised by ATC. State law requires the presence of a certified asbestos consultant when abatement is under way.

Henderson is the on-site manager for Nova, the project manager. Jones was the manager for Skanska, the construction manager.

On Jan. 17, 2005, according to the lawsuit, Jones informed the asbestos abatement contractor on the job, Marcello Barbero of Restec Contractors, of plans to pulverize an area of the concrete flooring on the building's second story.

Barbero warned Jones that the work would loosen asbestos fireproofing beneath the floor, causing it to fall in the area above the ceiling tiles of the first floor. The area contains the air intake for the building's ventilation system.

In two subsequent letters, Barbero warned Jones of the dangers of doing the work while employees remained in the building and said Restec would not participate without the oversight and a work plan of an asbestos consultant.

Jones responded that ATC would be reviewing the work and had already stated that the ceiling tiles would form a barrier to any loosened asbestos. ATC Associates had not been on the job for more than two weeks and was unaware of the work, the lawsuit states.

Worried about violating law

ATC's Nystrom learned of the work on Jan. 28, 2005, in an e-mail from Henderson. Nystrom later told Henderson the plan couldn't be done "without violating the law and exposing people to asbestos."

An angry Henderson hung up on Nystrom, calling him "an obstructionist to Nova's efforts to get the job done on time."

In a subsequent series of e-mails, Nystrom reiterated his opinion that the building had to be unoccupied for such work. Henderson's written answers, however, indicated that Nystrom had agreed the job could be done with additional safeguards, including air sampling.

On Feb. 4, 2005, according to the lawsuit, Jones faxed a memo to Restec's Barbero falsely claiming that Nystrom had approved the plan. Suspicious, Barbero call Nystrom, who told him he "would never sign off on such a plan and that he had advised both Jones and Henderson that the demolition they proposed was illegal and would result in exposing people to hazardous levels of asbestos."

On Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2005, Henderson asked Nystrom to conduct air sampling that Friday morning to confirm no asbestos was released during a "mock-up" of the demolition work that was to be done, presumably, on Thursday night.

But the mock-up was done by an outside contractor that night. The contractor was not told there were concerns regarding asbestos and did not wear protective clothing. Nystrom showed up 36 hours later to do air sampling.

"By directing the sampling to commence 36 hours after the demolition mock-up, Henderson generated a false sense of security for the North Wing occupants and the county about the level of asbestos in the air," the lawsuit reads.

Fearing that ATC would be perceived to be participating in the "unsupervised concrete demolition," Nystrom e-mailed Henderson on Feb. 15, 2005, that the air samples would be forthcoming but that "due to a very busy schedule," ATC would no longer be able to assist on the job.

Ten days later, Jones sent an e-mail to Barbero falsely stating that ATC Associates signed off on the demonstration work, but Barbero still refused to participate, the lawsuit asserts.

Jones then contracted with the same company that conducted the mock-up to carry out the demolition. The firm was unaware that the project involved asbestos and had not been approved by an asbestos consultant.

Jones hired Don Diel, owner of C&W Environmental Consulting, to be the asbestos consultant on the job, telling him that the prior mock-up had been approved by ATC and that air testing had proved it was done safely. While Diel asked for copies of the testing and other related data, it was never provided to him, said the lawsuit.

The demolition work was done March 31, 2005. The next day, air samples showed asbestos levels at alarming levels.

Building closed

At the beginning of the job, Skanska and Nova had agreed an asbestos level of 70 structures per millimeter squared would be acceptable, based on a level established by the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, according to the suit.

Air sampling on April 1, 2005, showed levels as high as 6,188 structures per millimeter squared. Workers were evacuated and the building was closed.

While emergency workers decontaminated the building, according to the lawsuit, they did not remove the asbestos that still lay on the ceiling tiles throughout the first floor.

After being alerted to concerns by Monterey County environmental prosecutor Matt Abkhasian, Michael Sheehan of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District investigated on April 30, 2005, and determined that chunks of asbestos remained on the ceiling tiles.

"Sheehan determined that people in the building on Feb. 10, 2005, and thereafter were further exposed to asbestos whenever there was subsequent welding or other work done in the north wing because the material was circulated through the return air plenum ventilation system," said the suit.

"Plaintiffs continued to be exposed to hazardous and lethal levels of asbestos until... Sept. 11, 2006, when the north wing was permanently evacuated because loose asbestos... was found in the upper floor air plenums."

The lawsuit asks damages for negligence, infliction of emotional distress, concealment and misrepresentation, among other causes. It was brought by the law firms of Needham, Davis, Keeping & Young of San Jose; Sterns and Walker of Oakland; and Gordon Stemple of Fresno.

Toxic contamination

Stemple was the plaintiffs' attorney in Potter v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., a landmark local case involving the toxic contamination of drinking water of residents who lived near the city of Salinas' Crazy Horse Landfill. The case was eventually settled for a confidential amount, but set precedent for "fear of cancer" cases when it went before the California Supreme Court on appeal after a non-jury trial before Judge Robert O'Farrell.

Stemple, who said he has represented 24,000 individual asbestos plaintiffs in his career, said he has never seen a case where workers became sick after a single exposure, as is claimed by Judge Maldonado and his bailiff, Rod Cabotage in their lawsuit.

The difference, Stemple believes, is that the courthouse's employees were exposed to a "souffle" of toxins, including mold, lead and animal feces that collected in the building.

He and the other plaintiffs' attorneys declined to discuss the amount of damages they would seek.

"We would not be here handling this case if we thought each individual case, separately, was not a significant matter in and of itself," Stemple said.

"We conducted a three-month investigation prior to preparing the lawsuit and we believe at the time of trial we will be able to prove everything alleged therein."

Stemple said the case was brought to his attention by Harry Gamotan, president of the Service Employees International Union local which represents courthouse employees.

Gamotan said he contacted Stemple because he felt the information that was given workers after the March 31, 2005 asbestos release was "being whitewashed." The union decided to open the meetings and lawsuit to management because of the seriousness of their health concerns.

"I just hope that the people, if they've been injured in some way, there's something there for them," he said. "Once you get asbestos, there's not a pill to get rid of it. You have it for life."