Facts

Harold Winston was employed with the County of Los Angeles as a Supervising Deputy, Public Administrator I. After leaving his position at the County of Los Angeles, Winston filed an action against the county with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted claims for race discrimination; retaliation; failure to maintain a discrimination and harassment free environment; and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. Specifically, plaintiff contended that he was retaliated against for raising concerns of misappropriation of probate assets by a manager in the County of Los Angeles Department of Treasurer and Tax Collector. Plaintiff claimed that Treasurer and Tax Collector senior management collaborated to cover-up the alleged misdeeds. Plaintiff also contended that he was retaliated against for complaining that black employees were subjected to disparate treatment at the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleged that, because of the hostile work environment, he was not able to return to work at the County of Los Angeles.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions. Defendant argued that plaintiff suffered discipline because of the way he expressed his whistleblowing and race-based concerns, not the content of his complaints and denied any cover-up of the misdeeds. Defendant asserted that the only adverse employment actions alleged were plaintiff's 10-day and 20-day suspensions; that there was no evidence of discriminatory motive or intent based on the issuance of those suspensions, because there was no evidence that any employee engaged in conduct similar to plaintiff was not issued a similar discipline; plaintiff could not show a causal link between plaintiff's complaints and the adverse actions, because the allegations of protected activity and adverse employment actions in suspensions were too remote in time to establish a link; and any employment actions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons.

Result

The jury awarded plaintiff $257,000. The jury determined that plaintiff was retaliated against for his whistleblowing complaints. The jury found in favor of defendant on plaintiff's race-based retaliation claims.