Facts

Plaintiffs Troy Hernandez, Ron Corbett, Dave Matsukiyo, and Albert Carrillo were police officers for the South Gate Police Department and sued the city of South Gate and the police department for various claims including discrimination, retaliation and harassment. Their alleged troubles arose out of the 2003 recall of the mayor and three city council members.

To begin, the city council named Rick Lopez as Deputy Chief of the South Gate Police Department in 2001. He was the first Latino to serve in that position. (Plaintiff's counsel points out that although South Gate is over 90 percent Hispanic, virtually all of the top police department management was Caucasian). A recall was initiated against three city council members, and Treasurer Albert Robles who had secured his appointment. According to plaintiff's counsel, the administration conducted a campaign of harassment and intimidation directed against the four plaintiffs and other officers who were loyal to the new Hispanic chief. This included denial of instruction and promotions, untrue adverse annual reviews, false administrative hearings, vandalism, ostracism and threats of harm. By the end of Lopez's first week in the department, Robert Todd and William Richert were among four candidates for the Chief of Police position who filed discrimination claims with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Lopez then declined the Deputy Chief of Police position but was hired six months later, for the department's acting Chief of Police on condition that Mark Van Holt be named as Deputy Chief of Police. Lopez, in his first three months, approved the hiring of Officer Troy Hernandez, promoted Officer Ron Corbett to Field Training Officer, and sent Officers Dave Matsukiyo and Albert Carrillo to Field Training Officer school. Fellow police officers, in the meantime, were allegedly encouraged to support the recall effort through various methods including the anonymous posting of suggestive posters in police department buildings, and an anonymous letter which plaintiffs considered a credible death threat for their alleged support of Lopez.

Officer Richert, who Lopez subjected to an investigation for alleged misconduct, was eventually terminated by Lopez. However, Lopez took a medical leave and then was placed on administrative leave himself, with Officer Todd to serve as South Gate's acting Chief of Police. Officer Richert returned to the department and was promoted to acting captain. By this time, the Treasurer and city council members had already been successfully recalled. Despite this, Officers Carrillo, Hernandez, Corbett, and Matsukiyo claimed to still suffer harassment and a hostile work environment, discrimination and intimidation.

Hernandez soon resigned and took a position with the Arcadia Police Department. Matsukiyo filed a grievance regarding allegations of a disparate work schedule. Carrillo claimed he was told he was on Chief Richert's "hit list," and Corbett alleged some of his personal property had been taken from the department building. They claimed police officers were subject to intimidation for support of Police Chief Lopez and that they were called "traitors" for being a select group of officers who even spoke with Lopez.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Officer Hernandez argued he was subjected to hazing where he was left to stand in the parking lot for 12 straight hours. He also argued that fellow officers referred to him as a "dick" and "FNG," for "f-ing new guy." When he filed a DFEH claim, the department argued he had failed to report a minor car accident as a pretext for his termination.

He further argued his decision to resign and relocate to another police department constituted a constructive discharge brought about by discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment. Officer Carrillo argued he was blacklisted and threatened with termination, and that the department failed to promote him. He argued the positions he desired were given to less qualified white candidates. He claimed that a CD in his car was broken and that his car tires had been slashed. He also complained that a dildo was placed in his mailbox and that others referred to him by using the Spanish word for "genitalia." He further maintained he had been approached to quit the department.

Officer Corbett argued that he was denied overtime and was relieved of his duties in the Field Training Office, and was also denied a Sergeant position. Matsukiyo argued he was subjected to a hostile work environment, was discriminated and retaliated against for supporting Lopez, and for his various complaints. He argued he was removed from his job at the Field Training Office as well, and was given a false negative personnel report. He claimed fellow officers referred to him as "Godzuky," and was referred to in a racial way at least 25 times per day.

Corbett and Matsukiyo further argued that they had been assaulted by an officer who drove his motorcycle at them while they had been standing at a sidewalk.

According to plaintiff's counsel, defense witnesses were often impeached by prior deposition testimony that was contrary to their statements in court.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants argued plaintiff's counsel presented numerous falsities and inaccuracies. The defendants further argued none of the plaintiffs even supported Lopez, and none of them indicated to anyone at the department that they were being harassed or discriminated against because of their alleged association with Lopez. The defendants maintained that the evidence refuted Hernandez's claim that he was left to stand 12 hours in the parking lot.

Defendants contended Carrillo was actually promoted to Field Training Officer in 2006 and that he was initially denied the detective post 21 months after the recall election. The defendants claimed Matsukiyo engaged in the racial jokes complained of and no evidence suggests his concerns had anything to do with Police Chief Lopez. The defendants also argued Corbett never complained he was being harassed and there was no evidence that he even applied for the sergeant position he claims he was denied.

Injuries

Hernandez claimed he sustained significant economic damages to earnings and future pension earnings, arguing he was constructively discharged from the South Gate Police Department. Carrillo, Matsukiyo and Corbett argued they also sustained wage damages and future pension damages as they were either denied additional overtime opportunities, or missed out on promotion opportunities, or were demoted. The plaintiffs further sought damages for past and future emotional distress, arguing they would professionally and emotionally suffer for the remainder of their lives.

Result

The jury found the city did not engage in racial discrimination and did not fail to prevent harassment or discrimination, but it did find plaintiffs were being discriminated against based on Police Chief Lopez's race. It further found Corbett was discriminated against because of a disability and that Hernandez's resort to resigning his position amounted to retaliation against all of the plaintiffs because Lopez was Latino. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for a total recovery of $10,396,030. $3,027,288 was awarded to Hernandez, $1.5 million was awarded to Corbett, $1,827,657 was awarded to Matsukiyo, and $4,041,085 was awarded to Carrillo. During trial, plaintiffs dismissed Chief Todd and Captain Richert as defendants in exchange for a waiver of fees and costs. Plaintiffs also claimed a violation of the Police Officers Bill of Rights (Government Code Sections 3300 et. seq.) alleging that defendant coerced them to participate in political activity and contribute money to the recall election; denied them training and promotions; denied Hernandez the attorney of his choice at an administrative hearing; and entered his locker without permission. These claims were presented to the court. The judge found that the POBR had been violated and awarded Hernandez, Corbet and Matsukiyo $50,000 each for these violations.

Other Information

Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees are still pending. The city intends to move for a JNOV, and for a new trial or, alternatively, remittitur, on several grounds - including legal errors and misconduct of plaintiffs' counsel during trial and closing argument.

Deliberation

3.5 days

Length

17 days