Whistleblower LAPD sergeant claims retaliation by employer. $4.5M. Los Angeles County.

Summary

Cop reports on wage fraud by another officer, is subjected to retaliation. Lack of investigation by City of LA.

Gross Verdict or Award: $4,507,218.44
Award as to each Defendant:
All against City of Los Angeles, as follows: Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code §1102.5): The jury unanimously found in favor of Randy Rangel and against the City of Los Angeles. FEHA Disability Discrimination (Govt. Code §12940(a)): A majority of the jury found in favor of Randy Rangel (9 jurors agreed), while three jurors (nos. 1, 14, and 23) disagreed. FEHA Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation (Govt. Code §12940(k)): The jury unanimously found in favor of Randy Rangel and against the City of Los Angeles.
Economic Damages:
Past: All 12 jurors agreed on the amount of $207,218.44.

Future: All 12 jurors agreed on the amount of $1,000,000.
Non-Economic Damages:
Past: All 12 jurors agreed on the amount of $2,000,000.

Future: All 12 jurors agreed on the amount of $1,300,000.
Jury Deliberation Time: 1 day

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Arminak Law, APC by Tamar G Arminak, Glendale.

Law Offices of Pat Harris by Eugene Patterson Harris (aka Pat Harris), Studio City.
Attorney for the Defendant:
City of Los Angeles by Ngoc Ha T. Nguyen, Los Angeles.

Facts and Background:
Plaintiff was a former LAPD sergeant, who reported another officer for falsely claiming overtime hours in 2018-2019.. Plaintiff retired in 2023 after 32 years with the LAPD.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That after reporting the fraud in 2018 and 2019, he faced retaliation, harassment, and was removed from his position as captain’s adjutant. That after plaintiff reported his concerns, the department did not investigate the overtime fraud, and instead plaintiff became the target of false rumors and mistreatment. He filed an anonymous complaint with Internal Affairs in 2020 but was later identified as the source, leading to further retaliation from department officials, including harassment from officers he had accused.

Plaintiff sued the department for:

1. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5

2. Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov't Code $ 12940 et seq.)

3. Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination in Violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov't Code $ 12940 et seq.)
Defendant's Contentions:
That defendant did not engage in retaliation for whistleblowing, did not discriminate or harass plaintiff, did not fail to investigate fraud, and that plaintiff did not suffer any damage due to claimed retaliation.