Facts

Armando Perez sued the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that he was a police officer for the LAPD. In May 2010, as a Lieutenant assigned to the Metropolitan Division, plaintiff initiated a detailed audit of the Metro's firearms inventory. During his audit, he discovered that officers within the unit and civilians were purchasing special LAPD SWAT-stamped Kimber firearms. Plaintiff discovered that some of the officers were possibly reselling those firearms. Plaintiff discovered that certain officers were facilitating sales of the firearms to non-Metro LAPD officers, non-LAPD civilians, and even gun dealers.

Plaintiff reported what he believed were violations of federal and/or state and/or municipal laws. Plaintiff alleged he reported illegal kickbacks, fraudulent accounting practices, and ethics violations. In response to his report, the officer plaintiff identified filed a retaliatory complaint against him. In response, plaintiff reported the retaliatory acts and hostile work environment he was experiencing. However, LAPD took no action in response to plaintiff's reports of retaliation. Instead, he was issued a five-day suspension.

In 2012, the Office of the Inspector General issued a review, criticizing the LAPD's handling of the Kimber investigation. Immediately thereafter, the Los Angeles Times ran a story regarding the SWAT weapons sales. Following the story's publication, plaintiff experienced even more retaliation. He was ostracized, and told to "watch his back." The retaliatory acts continued, which included threats, the systematic removal of his responsibilities in an attempt to force him to leave Metro, and other acts.

Plaintiff asserted a single claim for retaliation under Labor Code Section 1102.5.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied that plaintiff suffered any type of adverse employment action, which is a requisite element to his claim of retaliation. Defendant also denied that any of the allegedly reported activity was unlawful. Defendants argued that Perez had always maintained the same position in Metropolitan Division as a Lieutenant II, and had been responsible for the various Protective Details, including the Mayor's Detail, for many years. Defendants claimed that plaintiff had that responsibility when he allegedly reported the issues with the private purchasing of Kimber arms. Plaintiff still has this job duty and responsibility. Nothing has changed. Defendants contended that plaintiff's claim that he was issued a five-day suspension, was later withdrawn with back pay restored.

Result

The parties reached a $900,000 settlement.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Feb. 21, 2013.