Kissimmee’s former city attorney who was terminated by a City Commission vote in February has sued the city for her wrongful termination.
Olga Sanchez de Fuentes, who had been with the city since 2014 and the City Attorney since 2019, filed the action with the Ninth Circuit Court on July 21 citing a violation of the state’s Public Sector Whistleblowers Act. Across a 21-page suit, Sanchez and her legal team seek damages over $50,000 from a breach of contract and “the covenant of good faith and fair standing.”
At the Feb. 3 City Commission meeting, Mayor Jackie Espinosa cited a list of “serious and ongoing concerns regarding the City Attorney’s capability, judgment, responsiveness, and overall quality of work” she shared with fellow commissioners before making a motion to terminate, despite discussion about the attorney’s contract not appearing on the meeting’s agenda, brought up instead during city officials comment time at the end of the meeting.
Commissioner Noel Ortiz seconded the motion, Carlos Alvarez voted in favor and Vice Mayor Angela Eady voted against. Commission Janette Martinez was absent. The city attorney and city manager are the only two positions commissioners have “hire and fire” power in the entire city employee hierarchy.
This came two months after the attorney sent an email to Espinosa and City Manager Mike Steigerwald, sharing links from the Commission on Ethics Opinions regarding city grants three companies Espinosa’s family owns received through the city’s “Business Boost 2.0” program designed to use leftover federal COVID-19 pandemic recovery funds to “boost” city companies facing hardships caused by the pandemic. The email noted a city official receiving such funds from the same city they serve, “Can create a prohibited, conflicting contractual relationship between the officer or employee,” and violated a state statute. She offered to meet to discuss further.
In March, Espinosa addressed the perception that her action was related to the attorney’s questioning the grant in an interview with the News- Gazette.
“There’s a whole history of things that happened, which I finally put in writing and submitted (to City Manager Mike Steigerwald). I didn’t fire her. I asked for her resignation, because I found that we were at a place where it just wasn’t going to get (better),” the mayor said. “One, two, three months after the money had been issued, do you think maybe you should have had that opinion when we first discussed this? Do you think you should have questioned this back then? The attorney decided to get an opinion after the money had been dispersed, after I had stressed my concerns about other things.”
In the lawsuit, the attorney asserts she was not made aware of the mayor receiving grant money until the City Manager informed her via text on Dec. 5, prompting her email regarding the grants.
Last week, special prosecutor Mayanne Downs, called on to investigate a complaint from a city resident about the acceptance of city funds and the ensuing firing of the attorney, found that the city has cause to seek articles of impeachment against Espinosa.
“She says only that she was not warned until after the funds had been received that she should not take them,” Downs said in her report also released last week. “An elected official does not need to be warned to know the law, or to follow it.”
The wrongful termination lawsuit states that on Dec. 12, 2025, seven days after Plaintiff provided Mayor Espinosa and City Manager with the legal opinion that the Mayor receiving grant money would be a prohibited contractual relationship, “The Mayor appeared to be actively looking for Plaintiff’s replacement, which resulted in a letter of interest from her who wanted to serve as City Attorney.
Among the allegations. the suit calls a document Espinosa produced at the meeting that the attorney was terminated, that stated the attorney’s office had overcharged taxpayers as much as $6.2 million over 10 years, was not prepared by any city staff.
“Espinosa did not disclose who prepared the unverified audit, and included years in which Sanchez was not the city’s attorney,” the suit states. “The budget review document was materially inaccurate and was presented without prior notice to Plaintiff, without being included in the agenda back-up for public input, and without giving Plaintiff any meaningful opportunity to review or respond prior to the vote on her termination.”
The lawsuit names the city, not Espinosa, as the defendant. The parties involved have declined comment regarding the suit, or could not be reached.
