Facts

Melanie Singer began her employment for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) around July 1988, beginning as an officer but was promoted to sergeant in 2014. In her approximately 29-year employment with the CHP, she performed many duties and received accolades throughout the years. Of note, she was a star witness at the 1992 Rodney King trial, testifying against the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In 2007, she filed a federal complaint against the CHP alleging, among others, hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation. She also began other actions against the CHP before the California State Personnel Board (SPB). Those particular actions settled in May 2009. After some incidents during her employment with the CHP, she applied for retirement in 2017 and thereafter filed charges of discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender against CHP with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. She then filed suit against the CHP after she received notice of the right to sue.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff Singer alleged that beginning as far back as 1992, she has encountered professional backlash for testifying against the LAPD in the Rodney King trial and while her 2009 claims were settled, the harassment and discrimination against her continued, especially because she was one of the few females in the CHP. This treatment continued after her promotion to sergeant in 2014. After that point, she began experiencing increasing disrespect from her male superiors, especially her supervising lieutenant. For example, she was denied opportunities for overtime that were more readily granted to men. She was also required to write a memo summarizing what she learned after each training session, something not required with the other male sergeants. Singer also maintained that her supervisor belittled her and undermined her authority. She was falsely accused of yelling obscenities, and she was unjustly investigated for dishonest conduct. Throughout the investigation's interviews, the officers interviewing her clearly demonstrated bias and prejudice against her even though they were required to be objective. Pending the investigation, she was provided a notice of leave of absence with pay and her gun and badge were revoked. When she approached the CHP's union representative regarding her situation, she was advised to retire, which would stop the CHP investigation for dishonest conduct. In June 2017, she submitted her retirement paperwork. As to her specific allegations, Singer contended causes of action for the following: retaliation for opposing discrimination and harassment; gender discrimination; harassment based on gender; and failure to prevent discrimination.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant CHP denied all contentions. Specifically, CHP maintained there was no causal connection between Plaintiff's gender and its actions, which were all based on legitimate business reasons. First, that she was promoted to sergeant helps negate her gender causes of action. She was provided with the same requisite training for sergeants during her probationary period. That she was required to take notes or provide summary memos was to ensure that she would learn and could handle all of the new skills required for the sergeant position such as scheduling, monthly reports, preparing required forms, personnel matters, and others. These preparatory lessons from skilled, supervisory officers would ensure that she would retain the new skills needed to pass probation. As for falsely being accused for the obscenities, while Singer denied making the statements, independent witnesses attested otherwise. Moreover, Singer's accusations regarding preferential treatment were meritless. Scheduling was based on seniority-not gender-and because Singer had the least senior status of the sergeants, she was not always given the days she wanted. On the days when she did have to work certain holidays such as Christmas, her supervisor would give her New Year's Day off and, in fact, gave her that entire New Year's week off in 2017. As for the internal investigation against her, Singer was interviewed twice because of inconsistent markings on a citation she wrote. Not only did the copies not match, but she admitted, during the internal investigation interview that she made the markings after the driver received his copy of the citation which is a violation of CHP policy. Moreover, during the two, separate interviews, Singer's answers and statements were inconsistent. Based on the evidence and statements made during the interviews, she provided the investigators with three different explanations for the discrepancy on the citations. Consequently, the internal investigation concluded that Singer altered the citation in violation of policy and she was dishonest during her interviews, again in violation of CHP policy. All of CHP's actions against Singer were in line with its policies and the result would have been the same regardless of her gender.

Result

Defendant California Highway Patrol's motion for summary judgment was granted.