206 Gonzalez - Complaint

20STCV35594
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Barbara Meiers
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/17/2020 12:57 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Barel,Deputy Clerk
Alan Romero (SBN 249000)

1
ROMERO LAW, APC
2 80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880
Pasadena, CA 91101-2672
3 Telephone: (626) 396-9900
Facsimile: (626) 396-9990
4
Email: [email protected]
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 AUSTREBERTO GONZALEZ
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
9
10 AUSTREBERTO GONZALEZ, an individual; Case No.:
11 UNLIMITED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff,
(1) FEHA DISCRIMINATION: DISPARATE
12
TREATMENT
13 vs. (2) FEHA DISABILITY-BASED
ASSOCIATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
14 (3) FEHA WORK ENVIRONMENT
HARASSMENT
15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political (4) FEHA RETALIATION
subdivision of the State of California; and DOES (5) FEHA FAILURE TO PREVENT
16
1-99, inclusive; HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION, OR
17 RETALIATION
(6) UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (LAB. CODE §
18 Defendants. 1102.5)
(7) BANE ACT
19
[JURY FEE DEPOSIT POSTED]
20
21
22
23
24
25 COMES NOW THE Plaintiff AUSTREBERTO GONZALEZ (“Gonzalez” or “Plaintiff”),
26 who heretofore alleges the following facts in support of his Unlimited Complaint for Damages and
27 hereby respectfully demands a speedy jury trial on all causes of action stated herein as against COUNTY
28
1
UNLIMITED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 OF LOS ANGELES (“COLA”), who along with DOES 1-99, inclusive, is referred to herein as the
2 “Defendants”.
3 CASE SYNOPSIS
4 1. Plaintiff is a Deputy Sheriff who was assigned to Compton Sheriff’s Station.
5 2. In February 2020, Plaintiff called an anonymous tip line to engage in protected
6 whistleblowing activity by reporting the criminal activities of a deputy gang at Compton Station which
7 existed to violate the rights of the public and other Sheriff’s Department employees. The Department
8 turned over a recording of this anonymous call to the criminal gang, placing Plaintiff in danger. The
9 Department took zero steps to curtail the deputy gang.
10 3. In March 2020, Plaintiff met with Department investigators and again blew the whistle
11 on the activities of the criminal deputy gang. Again, the Department took zero steps to curtail the deputy
12 gang.
13 4. Instead, Plaintiff later learned that the Department had taken several affirmative steps to
14 assist the leader of the deputy gang, Jaime Juarez. Jaime Juarez, who had been previously banned from
15 being on patrol due to his involvement in questionable shootings which led to a Department-identified
16 risk to public safety, was put back on patrol. Further, Juarez, who had been punitively transferred away
17 from Compton Station due to his gang activity and racketeering, was transferred back to the Station by
18 the Department. This created a culture of impunity and violence at the Station which had been shaped
19 and enabled by the Department.
20 5. Finally, after fearing for his safety, and becoming aware of a violent attack by the gang
21 on another station deputy, Plaintiff contacted an attorney to represent him in his disputes with the
22 Department. Plaintiff had no other choice and would have never filed a claim had the Department taken
23 his multiple instances of whistleblowing seriously and taken any affirmative steps to curtail the criminal
24 gang activity at Compton Station.
25 6. On or about August 29, 2020, Sheriff Alex Villanueva stated the following on a television
26 news program: “When you say they are whistleblowers… no. These are people who are suing. And
27 when they’re suing, one of the process of suing is that you make the allegations as… as big as possible,
28
2
1 and that’s part of the lawsuit process. When you go to the actual hard facts and prove them, that’s an
2 entirely different animal.”
3 7. Plaintiff hereby brings this action to prove the actual hard facts of this case, and to prove
4 that despite the Sheriff’s claim to the contrary, that Plaintiff is in fact a whistleblower who was retaliated
5 against for engaging in legally protected conduct by his employer, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
6 Department.
7 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
8 Jurisdiction and Venue
9 8. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of Plaintiff’s claims. Jurisdiction is
10 proper in this Court because the damages and claims alleged and demanded herein by Plaintiff exceeds
11 $25,000, and Plaintiff herein does make a demand and prayer for damages, in excess, of the jurisdictional
12 limit of this Court.
13 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant COLA in that it was, at all relevant
14 periods of time covered by this complaint, a political subdivision of the State of California maintaining
15 hundreds of places of business in the County of Los Angeles.
16 10. Venue in this Court is proper in that, upon information and belief, Defendants reside in
17 the County of Los Angeles.
18 11. All the harm suffered by Plaintiff took place within this judicial district.
19 The Plaintiff
20 12. Plaintiff is, and was, at all relevant periods of time covered by this complaint, a resident
21 of the City of Whittier, County of Los Angeles.
22 13. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants, jointly and severally.
23 The Defendants
24 14. Defendant COLA is a public entity who maintains a place of business, where it employed
25 Plaintiff at: 301 S. Willowbrook Avenue, Compton, CA 90220.
26
27
28
3
1 Relationship Between the Defendants
2 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendants, and each of
3 them, were at all times mentioned herein the agents, servants, and employees of each other, or otherwise
4 were acting with the full knowledge and consent of each other. Plaintiff is further informed and believes,
5 and upon such basis and belief alleges, that in doing all of the things alleged in this complaint,
6 Defendants, and each of them, were acting within the scope and authority of their agency, servitude, or
7 employment, and were acting with the express and/or implied knowledge, permission and consent of
8 one another. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and upon such basis and belief alleges, that
9 Defendants learned of, ratified, and/or approved the wrongful conduct of its agents and/or employees
10 identified in this Complaint as having engaged in wrongful conduct.
11 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all relevant times,
12 Defendants, and each of them, were business entities or individuals who owned, controlled, or managed
13 the business which has damaged Plaintiff, and are each therefore jointly, severally, and individually
14 liable to Plaintiff.
15 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all relevant times,
16 Defendants, and each of them, were in some fashion, by contract or otherwise, the successor, assignor,
17 indemnitor, guarantor, or third-party beneficiary of one or more of the remaining Defendants, and at all
18 relevant times to Plaintiff’s claims alleged herein, were acting within that capacity. Plaintiff further
19 alleges that Defendants, and each of them, assumed the liabilities of the other Defendants, by virtue of
20 the fact that each to some degree, wrongfully received and/or wrongfully benefited from the flow of
21 assets from the other Defendants, to the detriment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that by wrongfully
22 receiving and/or benefiting from Defendants’ assets, and in the consummation of such transactions, a de
23 facto merger of the Defendants, and each of them, resulted, such that Defendants, and each of them, may
24 be treated as one for purposes of this Complaint.
25 18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all relevant times
26 mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the partners, agents, servants, employees, joint
27 venturors, or co-conspirators of each other defendant, and that each defendant was acting within the
28
4
1 course, scope, and authority of such partnership, agency, employment, joint venture, or conspiracy, and
2 that each defendant, directly or indirectly, authorized, ratified, and approved the acts of the remaining
3 Defendants, and each of them.
4 Factual Allegations
5 19. Plaintiff has been employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”)
6 as a Deputy Sheriff since November 2007, and has spent the past 5 ½ years as a patrol Deputy at
7 Compton Station (“CPT”).
8 20. Plaintiff is a decorated Marine Corps combat veteran who was also decorated with a
9 Meritorious Conduct Silver Medal at the 2018 LASD Valor Awards for, along with his partner, saving
10 the life of a 4 year old boy who had been shot in the head.
11 21. Plaintiff is also the parent of a medically fragile daughter, Caitlynne Gonzalez, born in
12 2005. Caitlynne is severely diabetic and requires regular shots of insulin and glucose testing
13 approximately 10 times a day. Plaintiff has a court-ordered visitation schedule, and on those days, he is
14 responsible for caring for Caitlynne. Plaintiff is Caitlynne’s medical caregiver, as he injects her with
15 insulin and performs regular blood glucose level testing. Plaintiff is certified in diabetic education by
16 the Children’s Hospital of Orange County. If Caitlynne had to stay at home at Plaintiff’s home without
17 him present to medically attend to her, the child could possibly die due to neglect. Caring for Caitlynne
18 was a full-time job for the other parent who was caring of her. Caitlynne also suffers from Celiac disease
19 which is a serious autoimmune disease resulting in the inability to ingest gluten without damage to the
20 small intestine. This is a chronic condition for which there is no cure. As a result of her autoimmune
21 disease, Caitlynne has severe dietary restrictions that must be complied with. Caitlynne’s parents prepare
22 most of her food at home to ensure the absence of gluten and the absence of cross-contamination during
23 meal preparation. She is under the ongoing care of an endocrinologist to manage both her diabetes and
24 Celiac.
25 22. CPT has been permeated by a violent Deputy gang which calls itself “The Executioners.”
26 The Executioners operate at CPT with impunity, its members use violence against other Deputies and
27 members of the public in order to increase their standing within the criminal organization. The
28
5
1 Executioners recruit members at CPT based upon the prospect’s use of violence against suspects or other
2 Deputies. Nearly all the CPT Deputies who have been involved in high-profile shootings and out-of-
3 policy beatings at CPT in recent years have been “inked” members of The Executioners. “Inking”
4 symbolizes the violent acts each newly made member of The Executioners committed to obtain entry
5 into the gang. The Executioners receive a matching tattoo indicating membership in the organization,
6 the tattoo consisting of a skull with Nazi imagery, holding an AK-47, a gun most commonly utilized by
7 gang members, and not any law enforcement agency. Members become inked as “Executioners” after
8 executing members of the public, or otherwise committing acts of violence in furtherance of the gang.
9 Deputies involved in fatal shootings at CPT have immediately been inked, with the organization having
10 “inking parties” to celebrate Executioner member-involved shootings as well as the induction of new
11 members. Of approximately 100 patrol Deputies at CPT, an estimated 20 are inked members of The
12 Executioners, with another 20 being considered “prospects” or are otherwise close associates of the
13 gang. The gang members communicate exclusively through WhatsApp, an encrypted messaging app on
14 their phones, a technique used by criminals such as drug traffickers and terrorists. The Executioners do
15 not allow African American or female members.
16 23. The Executioners, led by inked “shotcaller” Deputy Jaime Juarez, have paralyzed CPT
17 through their use of violence against Deputies, and threats of illegal “work slowdowns,” by which
18 Executioners members, and associates at CPT, will purposefully cease some or all of their law
19 enforcement duties, while continuing to be paid, in order to impose their will upon CPT by force. One
20 such work slowdown occurred in 2019, when shot caller Juarez confronted Acting CPT Captain Larry
21 Waldie. Juarez informed Waldie that he, and by extension The Executioners gang that he presided over,
22 was demanding that the Training and Scheduling Deputy, Wanda Valiente, be replaced with an inked
23 member of The Executioners. Deputy Anthony Bautista. The Training and Scheduling Deputy position
24 was enormously desirable to the gang, as that position would be able to dole out preferred shifts to inked
25 gang members, as well as provide them with any days off that they would desire… all to the extreme
26 prejudice of non-gang members who would be disparately and negatively impacted by the most desirable
27 schedules being funneled exclusively to the gang. Lt. Waldie immediately put his foot down and advised
28
6
1 Juarez that he would not be intimidated into carrying out his duties based upon the desires of The
2 Executioners. In retaliation, Juarez, The Executioners, and their associates at CPT implemented the
3 threatened work slowdown, wreaking havoc at CPT and resulting in enormous losses to County
4 taxpayers and these individuals who participated in the slowdown received their full public salaries for
5 doing little or no work. Lt. Waldie, after notifying his superior, Captain Michael Thatcher instigated the
6 punitive transfer of gang leader Juarez to Industry Station, but Lt. Waldie was later overruled, and Juarez
7 was allowed to return to his gang home base at CPT.
8 24. In 2016, Plaintiff attempted to get scheduled to have certain days off so that he could
9 provide medical care to his daughter, Caitlynne on those dates. At this time, Juarez was the Training and
10 Scheduling Deputy, who operated the Station scheduling in a manner to benefit his gang. Plaintiff, a
11 non-member of the gang, was refused these days off by Juarez. Plaintiff had no other option at this point
12 but to go out on CFRA/FMLA leave, as his superiors with whom he discussed his situation with, refused
13 to, or otherwise lacked the ability to confront Juarez, as he was the leader of the Station gang and rarely
14 subject to meaningful supervision or control by his superiors due to his gang ties.
15 25. At this time, gang shotcaller Juarez, as the Training and Scheduling Deputy, changed
16 Plaintiff’s schedule to the “early morning shift,” to accommodate an Executioners gang member, all of
17 whom received preferential scheduling consideration over non-gang members or associates. Plaintiff
18 was one of those non-gang members who experienced an adverse employment action as a result of his
19 refusal to cooperate with the gang. Plaintiff protested this change, as the new workdays would make it
20 impossible for him to comply with this existing visitation order to provide medical care for Caitlynne
21 on certain days of the month. Juarez refused to reconsider the schedule change, as Juarez was giving the
22 preferred schedule to Deputy Jesus Sandoval, an inked Executioner. This change of schedule meant that
23 Plaintiff would have different days off, and therefore could no longer provide care to his diabetic
24 daughter on dates previously ordered by Court. Juarez taunted Plaintiff when being informed of
25 Caitlynne’s medical needs: “it’s not going to happen… you either take the new shift and schedule I’m
26 giving you or take your FMLA” It was then that Plaintiff informed Juarez that if forced to, he would
27 take CFRA/FMLA leave in order to care for his severely ill daughter. Plaintiff protested to his
28
7
1 supervisor, Sgt. Lopez, then the Scheduling and Training Sgt at CPT, but Lopez refused to consider the
2 basis for Plaintiff’s objection and informed him that he would support Juarez’s erroneous decision.
3 26. Plaintiff then took 6-8 weeks off as PTO, constituting his CFRA/FMLA leave. Plaintiff
4 would not have been forced to burn PTO if he had been allowed a reasonable accommodation in
5 scheduling to care for his ill daughter on days that had been predetermined by court order. Plaintiff was
6 denied this benefit of employment due to scheduling preference for Executioners gang members at CPT.
7 27. The Executioners also had a pattern and practice of showing preference to prospective
8 members as soon as they were assigned to CPT. Once identified as prospects to become inked members,
9 newly assigned CPT Deputies were allowed to partner up with inked members right away, when all
10 other newly minted patrol Deputies were required to work by themselves for long periods of time.
11 Further, prospects are allowed to skip assignment, or have their assignments shortened, to the non-
12 preferred traffic or Compton Town Center mall substation detail. Plaintiff, as an example, was assigned
13 to traffic duty for a period of 12-14 months, as he was not interested in becoming a gang prospect.
14 28. Juarez eventually returned to CPT from his IDT transfer. This is believed to be an act of
15 gratitude shown by then Captain Thatcher to Juarez for assistance Juarez had previously directed his
16 gang and gang associates to provide to Thatcher.
17 29. In August or September 2017, there was a meeting with various Captains at the Division
18 level, and Thatcher was reprimanded for the arrest statistics being low at CPT. Thatcher reacted by
19 implementing an illegal arrest quota framework at CPT, in violation of California law (see Veh. Code §
20 41602). Thatcher sought the assistance of Juarez and the gang, resulting in CPT arrest statistics
21 increasing by an approximate 300% within a month. This was the result of gang members and their
22 associates being directed by Juarez to begin arresting individuals for misdemeanor matters that would
23 have previously not resulted in an arrest, or not resulted in a citation at all. Deputy Iliana Vargas, Juarez’s
24 girlfriend, was sometimes partnered up with Plaintiff during this period. During this period of time,
25 Vargas would begin to make very unusual misdemeanor arrests, usually arresting an individual and then
26 immediately releasing them in the field for no other purpose but to juke the arrest statistics as a favor
27 from the gang to Thatcher.
28
8
1 30. Several weeks later, Lt. John Wargo held a briefing and informed all Deputies that their
2 stats were low compared to other stations in the Division. Plaintiff was present when Wargo told all the
3 Deputies present at the briefing that it was their job to arrest people, “so go do your job.” After this
4 meeting, Deputies with low arrest numbers were retaliated against and punished by having to work
5 undesirable details such as working the front desk, traffic detail, or the Compton Town Center mall
6 substation.
7 31. Days after the Wargo briefing where the Deputies were illegally ordered to meet arrest
8 quotas or face punishment, Plaintiff along with Deputies Jonathan Alcala and Gabriel Guzman
9 complained about the illegality of the quota order to the Acting Watch Commander, Sgt. Andy Leos, as
10 the unlawful idea to punish Deputies with low arrest stats originated from Juarez and Leos. When
11 confronted by the Deputies and asked if undesirable assignments were being improperly used as
12 punishment for not meeting illegal arrest quotas, Leos admitted, “yes, you should have known that by
13 now.” Leos further stated that if someone had a problem with the new quota program, that they were
14 welcome to come to his office so that Leos could show them their “low stats.” Leos raised his voice to
15 Plaintiff and Deputies Alcala and Guzman and told them to “do your job, I’m trying to save your career.”
16 Alcala protested and said he was doing his job, to service calls for assistance from the public. As a result
17 of this interaction, Plaintiff, Alcala, and Guzman were all reprimanded as punishment for protesting the
18 illegal quota program and were demoted and immediately put on a rotation to traffic duty. Alcala had
19 been slated to promote to the Special Assignments Office (“SAO”) at CPT, but after he protested to
20 Leos, Leos informed the Sergeant commanding SAO to refuse the transfer to Alcala.
21 32. Due to this illegal arrest quota regime, average arrests per Deputy immediately went from
22 approximately 2.5 arrests per month to approximately 7 arrests per month. This resulted in the violation
23 of the civil rights of hundreds of residents of the CPT patrol area for no other reason but to insulate
24 Thatcher from criticism from his Division. Finally, Thatcher called a meeting with the patrol Deputies
25 and told them he was pleased with the results and new, artificially inflated arrest figures.
26 33. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff was recognized for his long and diligent service by being
27 promoted to a Field Training Officer (“FTO”). Plaintiff received 5% FTO pay increase. Plaintiff’s first
28
9
1 trainee was Deputy David Battles. Master FTO Saul Romero commended Plaintiff for doing a good job
2 of timely turning in his training Daily Observation Reports. On February 13, 2020, the month after
3 Plaintiff completed his training of Battles, MFTO Romero told Plaintiff to report to the LASD Patrol
4 School so that Plaintiff could have the first opportunity to pick his next trainee. Battles was an ideal
5 patrol candidate and had excelled in, and completed, all but his final training phase. At this time, he was
6 failed out of training by inked Executioners member Deputy Edwin Barajas. Plaintiff believes that
7 Battles was retaliated against because of his association with Plaintiff.
8 34. Thereafter, Gang member Deputy Eugene Contreras had returned to CPT after a
9 temporary assignment to the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”). Upon his return, he began extremely
10 aggressive, bullying behavior towards other Deputies with the intent of raising his standing within the
11 gang. Contreras is presently on the list to promote to Sergeant at CPT.
12 35. In February 2020, Contreras, now an FTO, threatened fellow FTO Deputy Thomas
13 Banuelos with violence. This led to an altercation in which Contreras assaulted Banuelos on-duty. This
14 assault was intended to further the reputation of the gang at CPT.
15 36. On February 8, 2020, Banuelos texted Plaintiff, who was another fellow FTO, and
16 informed him of Contreras’ violent conduct. Plaintiff was familiar with the aggressive behavior of
17 Contreras, who Plaintiff knew to be inked. A few days later, Plaintiff fulfilled his obligation to report
18 this violent incident anonymously to IAB. As Plaintiff would later learn, there was nothing confidential
19 about this report, as the Executioners gang had infiltrated IAB and would later obtain a recording of his
20 voice making the “anonymous” phone call to IAB. Within two days of the anonymous call, inked
21 members of The Executioners already knew it was Plaintiff who made the call. While at a Patrol School
22 training, Plaintiff was mortified when Deputy Alcala informed him that “[The Executioners] are saying
23 that it was you who called IA, and they can’t wait to get their hands on the voice print of the call.”
24 Plaintiff immediately realized that as Contreras had previously worked at IAB, that a former co-worker
25 at IAB had illegally warned Contreras of the complaint. This put Plaintiff at severe risk of violent
26 reprisal by the gang, so Plaintiff took several days off from work.
27
28
10
1 37. After returning to work, Plaintiff was still struggling to process all this information.
2 Plaintiff confided in his Operations Lieutenant, Lt. Ruiz, that he was the one who had called IAB
3 regarding Contreras, and that Plaintiff wanted to remain anonymous to the extent possible. Plaintiff
4 found himself in a worst-case scenario, as the entire CPT Station knew it was him who had reported an
5 inked member of The Executioners to IAB. Plaintiff knew that reprisal by the gang was inevitable as a
6 result of the leak of his identity to The Executioners. Plaintiff requested a week off from work due to
7 his well-founded fear of violent attack by the gang. During this week off, Deputy Alcala text messaged
8 Plaintiff a photo of graffiti in a very visible place in the Station which read: “ART IS A RAT”. This
9 confirmed that IAB had been penetrated and compromised by the criminal organization, and that his
10 identity had been leaked despite LASD Department policies which purported to protect the identity of
11 anonymous whistleblowers. This has the practical effect of calling the integrity of the entire IAB and
12 anonymous reporting program into question.
13 38. Complainant went back to Lt. Ruiz, as he was afraid that he would be violently assaulted
14 by the gang, as they had assaulted Banuelos. Complainant took a week off; he spoke with CPT Captain
15 LaTonya Clark and again memorialized his fear of violent reprisal by the gang. Clark told Plaintiff that
16 two investigators wanted to talk to him regarding his anonymous IAB complaint. Plaintiff agreed, as his
17 protected identity had already been compromised. Clark told Plaintiff that the investigators were not
18 from IAB, but rather part of a special detail from the Office of the Executive.
19 39. The next day, the two investigators arrived at the Station, unannounced, and informed
20 the front desk that they were there to speak with Plaintiff. Again, this was a worst-case scenario, as their
21 presence became known to the entire station, and especially inked gang member Deputy Bautista, who
22 was serving as the Watch Deputy that day, and informed Plaintiff’s partner, Deputy Adrian Garcia, that
23 “two IA investigators are here to talk to Gonzalez, so get over here.”
24 40. At this first meeting, Gonzalez told the investigators everything he knew about the
25 Contreras assault. He did, however, reiterate the fact that he wanted to remain anonymous, and that he
26 did not want his name associated with the anonymous call due to the threat of violent retaliation from
27 inked Deputies at this station. The investigators told Plaintiff that they may want to meet him again, but
28
11
1 Plaintiff protested and told the investigators that any future meetings would have to be done away from
2 CPT Station, out of fear of retaliation. Plaintiff became aware that Lt. Ruiz had forwarded the photo of
3 the threatening graffiti identifying Plaintiff to the investigators.
4 41. In late February 2020, after returning from his week off from work, Plaintiff was
5 approached by Scheduling Sergeant Frank Barragan, and was taken upstairs to the Conference Room.
6 Barragan reprimanded Plaintiff for taking intermittent CFRA/FMLA 3-5 days per month to care for his
7 ill daughter, Caitlynne. Barragan informed Plaintiff that he was being demoted from his FTO position.
8 Plaintiff protested, asserting his rights under the law. Barragan replied to Plaintiff that, “it would be a
9 disservice to your trainee if you are taking FMLA days off.” This was inaccurate because when Plaintiff
10 was training Battles, Plaintiff did not take a single day off for medical leave. Plaintiff had taken several
11 unscheduled days off during this period to care for Caitlynne, and these days had been approved. This
12 had not resulted in any meaningful disruption in his training of Battles, nor would such leave interfere
13 with the training of any future Deputy under Plaintiff’s supervision. Further, it was common practice for
14 other FTOs at CPT to miss 1-2 days of work a week, or even taken an entire week off while a trainee
15 has been assigned to them. It was clear that the retaliatory conduct of Plaintiff’s demotion was for his
16 having taken protected medical leave, but more importantly, because of his protected whistleblower
17 activities against the Station gang-in-residence. Plaintiff suffered a 5% reduction in pay as a result of
18 this retaliatory demotion meaning that he will not have any trainees assigned to him.
19 42. At this meeting where Sgt. Barragan reprimanded Plaintiff for taking protected leave,
20 Plaintiff was given an ultimatum. Barragan informed Plaintiff that, “there are two ways to do this, you
21 can voluntarily not take trainees and the other way is we start documenting.” Plaintiff understood this
22 to be a threat by which if Plaintiff did not acquiesce to the demotion from his FTO position, that Sgt.
23 Barragan and others would begin the process of “documenting” Plaintiff for discipline and inevitable
24 demotion and/or termination. Resultantly, Plaintiff signed a memo that Sgt. Barragan had prepared prior
25 to the meeting which stated that Plaintiff voluntarily was relinquishing his FTO position due to his need
26 to take protected leave to care for his daughter. Plaintiff had no choice in signing this document, as he
27 had been effectively ordered by his direct superior to sign the document or lose his job. On or about
28
12
1 this time, Sgt. Barragan authorized the hiring of “temporary” FTOs, and the “temporary” FTO position
2 was offered to Juarez and other members, or prospects, of The Executioners. Plaintiff believes that
3 Juarez exercised the power of the gang to control who would be eligible for an FTO position, and to
4 retaliate against Plaintiff as a result of his IAB complaint against the gang.
5 43. As of now, no other Deputy at CPT will partner with Plaintiff due to his being targeted
6 for retaliation by The Executioners. Further, the inked Deputy in dispatch, Bautista, began a pattern and
7 practice of slamming Plaintiff with excessive calls compared to other Deputies on the same shift.
8 Plaintiff complained to his supervisor, Lt. Ruiz about the excessive calls for service. Lt. Ruiz’s response
9 was “I can forward this as a POE (policy of equality) violation to “the Intake” (the intake of complaints
10 handled by IAB). Plaintiff did not see this as a viable option given that IAB had already leaked the voice
11 print from his whistleblower call and he requested Lt. Ruiz not make that referral. Lt. Ruiz expressed
12 frustration and asked Plaintiff to leave his office, even though Lt. Ruiz had previously assured Plaintiff
13 that if he ever felt retaliated against, to please come and ask Lt. Ruiz for assistance.
14 44. Plaintiff met with the investigators a second time, this time at the Long Beach Police
15 Department. Plaintiff asked the investigators if he put his name on the complaint, how long would it
16 take for Contreras to learn his identity. The investigators assured Plaintiff that it would be months until
17 Contreras would learn his identity. Prior to this meeting, Plaintiff had asked Captain Clark if he could
18 be transferred to another Station. Captain Clark offered Plaintiff an immediate or “overnight” transfer
19 to East LA Station, but Plaintiff declined due to the fact that this would cement his identity as the
20 whistleblower to the gang. Plaintiff instead requested a standard transfer to Pico Rivera Station (a
21 separate Division), the opportunity for which was coming up in several months. In the end, Plaintiff
22 was denied this transfer.
23 45. On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff was assigned to a “Memorial Detail”, by which Deputies
24 stand guard for one-hour shifts at a location where a police officer has been slain. Plaintiff was assigned
25 to stand guard until 3:00PM, which was the time that his shift was due to end. Resultantly, Plaintiff did
26 not finish his shift until one hour after his scheduled end time: at 4:00PM. Plaintiff went to his Operations
27 Lieutenant, Lt. Ruiz and Lt. Nicole Palomino, the Watch Commander. Both Lieutenants denied
28
13
1 Plaintiff’s legitimate request for overtime, claiming that such overtime was required to be preauthorized.
2 This was not common practice, as CPT Deputies are regularly paid overtime in situations where they
3 are legitimately held over past the end of their shift.
4 46. From Mid-March to Early April 2020, the Scheduling Sergeant, Sgt. Barragan called
5 Plaintiff and informed him that Contreras would be coming to the same day shift as Plaintiff. This
6 obviously belied the fact that Plaintiff’s identity as the whistleblower was known to Barragan, Contreras,
7 and others at CPT. Barragan requested that Plaintiff switch to the “early morning” graveyard shift, and
8 that Plaintiff would be given whatever days he wanted off. Plaintiff refused, informing Barragan that it
9 would not allow him to care for his medically fragile daughter, Caitlynne. Barragan queried Plaintiff:
10 “do you have a problem with [Contreras] working the same shift as you?” Plaintiff realized that he would
11 not be allowed to mind his own business, and that he would not be able to avoid interactions with
12 Executioners gang members while a Deputy at CPT.
13 47. Two weeks later, Lt. Ruiz informed Plaintiff that he could be removed from Patrol and
14 go on loan to the CPT Detective Bureau (“DB”) and be tasked with filing cases on behalf of the Station
15 at the Compton Courthouse. Plaintiff was not requesting to be reassigned but it became clear that
16 Contreras was switching to dayshift regardless and there was no way to stop that. This is another way
17 in which the Executioners are accommodated. Realizing that Plaintiff’s only options were to be
18 involuntarily transferred to DB or to be punitively placed on the early morning shift that would not allow
19 him to care for his daughter, he accepted the reassignment to DB so he could preserve his schedule of
20 work hours and days off. Importantly, Sgt. Barragan never offered the option of PM shift, as PMs is
21 heavily staffed by inked deputies. Plaintiff also saw this as an opportunity to distance himself from The
22 Executioners at CPT and so he accepted the assignment. However, The Executioners’ presence was felt
23 in the new assignment as Deputy Bautista was also on loan to DB. The pencil holder, mouse, and mouse
24 pad at Deputy Bautista’s desk displayed the Executioners tattoo logo. Deputy Bautista’s computer
25 screen saver was a taunting picture/message. The picture showed a black and white police vehicle with
26 the Sheriff’s Dept. logo on it, surrounded by with what appears to be detained gang members posing for
27 a picture. The caption on the picture was “Some people worked Compton; others just claimed they
28
14
1 did!!!” This message was purposefully displayed in an area that Plaintiff dropped off case tracking sheets
2 for the detectives at each of their desks each day and Plaintiff believes it was intended as a
3 warning/reminder to all personnel at the station of the Executioners’ presence and span of control.
4 48. Most recently, on a phone call with Plaintiff, Deputy Alcala informed Plaintiff that a few
5 months before, Deputy Sergio Jimenez had informed Alcala that he had been approached by a member
6 of the Special Enforcement Bureau (“SEB”) at CPT who claimed that he had a copy of the recording of
7 Plaintiff’s call to IAB. The SEB Deputy told Jimenez, “[Plaintiff] is saying all kinds of things and name-
8 dropping, do you want to hear it?” Deputy Alcala told Plaintiff that Jimenez had told the SEB Deputy
9 that he was not interested in hearing the recording and told Alcala that he did not want to be involved in
10 these events.
11 49. Further, an associate of the gang, Deputy Brian Avalos, was, as a result of his relationship
12 with the gang, promoted to Watch Deputy: a position that Plaintiff had tested for, and by seniority rules
13 should have gone to Plaintiff. Instead, the position was given to Avalos due to the fact that he had had
14 a restraining order issued against him that prohibited him from carrying a firearm on-duty, and the Watch
15 Deputy position allowed him to collect his salary while not carrying a gun and not going out on patrol.
16 Plaintiff was 100% entitled to this position, as the only deputy with more seniority than him who
17 qualified for the position was Deputy Mike Miller, who declined the position. According to LASD
18 policy and COLA Civil Service rules, the Watch Deputy position promotion should have gone to
19 Plaintiff. Instead LASD allowed the gang to fill it with one of its associates in derogation of Plaintiff’s
20 rights.
21 50. The aforementioned unlawful acts were undertaken by LASD employees in derogation
22 of the rights of Plaintiff.
23 51. Plaintiff has been subject to harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and disparate
24 treatment as a result of his protected status(es).
25 52. These acts constitute violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and
26 the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, Labor Code §§ 98.6 & 1102.5. Further, these
27 acts violate the LASD Manual of Policies and Procedures. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to
28
15
1 be determined at time of trial. Plaintiff has experienced economic and non-economic damages in an
2 amount set forth in this claim form. Plaintiff’s damages are ongoing and include, but are not limited to,
3 the salary differential between his present position and the position that he would have been promoted
4 to were it not for the illegal interference of LASD in violation of the County Charter and Civil Service
5 Rule 25.
6 No Claims Arising from Privileged Conduct
7 53. In the avoidance of doubt, Plaintiff does not herein allege any claim for damages as
8 against Defendants for any privileged action, such as the conducting of an investigation by a public
9 entity. Plaintiff, however, reserves the right to claim all damages arising out of consequences or actions
10 resulting from, or occasioned by, such a privileged investigation by a public entity.
11 54. Plaintiff expressly excludes from this Complaint any privileged act by any Defendant to
12 this action that would otherwise result in a Special Motion to Strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §
13 425.16.
14 Applicable Provisions of the County Charter and Civil Service Rules
15 55. Los Angeles Civil Service Rule 25 states that: “No person in the classified service or
16 seeking admission thereto shall be appointed, reduced or removed, or in any way favored or
17 discriminated against in employment or opportunity for employment because of race, color, religion,
18 sex, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, age, national origin or citizenship, ancestry,
19 political opinions or affiliations, organizational membership or affiliation, or other non-merit factors,
20 any of which are not substantially related to successful performance of the duties of the position. "Non-
21 merit factors" are those factors that relate exclusively to a personal or social characteristic or trait and
22 are not substantially related to successful performance of the duties of the position. Any person who
23 appeals alleging discrimination based on a non-merit factor must name the specific non-merit factor(s)
24 on which discrimination is alleged to be based. No hearing shall be granted, nor evidence heard relative
25 to discrimination based on unspecified non-merit factors. “
26 56. Section 30 of the Los Angeles County Charter states the following: “The purpose of this
27 article is to establish a Civil Service System for the classified service which shall provide County
28
16
1 government with a productive, efficient, stable, and representative work force by: (1) Recruiting,
2 selecting, and advancing employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge, and skills relevant
3 to the work to be performed. (2) Retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance,
4 correcting inadequate performance, and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot
5 be corrected.”
6 57. Further, Plaintiff protested and opposed violations of the following rules and regulations,
7 to wit, one or more of the following provisions of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual
8 of Policies and Procedures: (1) 3-01/000.10 - Professional Conduct; (2) 3-01/010.50 - Manner of
9 Exercising Authority; (3) 3-01/020.30 - Responsibility for Subordinate Supervisors; (4) 3-01/020.35 -
10 Organizational Control; (5) 3-01/020.60 - Responsibility for Subordinates; (6) 3-01/020.70 -
11 Responsibility for Conduct of Subordinates; (7) 3-01/030.05 - General Behavior; (8) 3-01/030.06 -
12 Disorderly Conduct; (9) 3-01/030.07 - Immoral Conduct; (10) 3-01/030.10 - Obedience to Laws,
13 Regulations, and Orders; (11) 3-01/030.15 - Conduct Toward Others; (12) 3-01/030.23 - Workplace
14 Violence; (13) 3-01/030.26 - Violation of Workplace Violence Policy; (14) 3-01/030.27 – Retaliation;
15 (15) 3-01/030.28 - Reporting of Workplace Violence and/or Retaliation; (16) 3-01/030.29 - Supervisor
16 Responsibilities; (17) 3-01/030.73 – Hazing; (18) 3-01/040.95 - Confidential Information; (19) 3-
17 01/050.83 - Employee Groups which Violate Rights of Other Employees or Members of the Public; (20)
18 3-01/075.00 - Personal Relationships Between Department Members; (21) 3-02/010.17 - Swapping of
19 RDO/Shifts; (22) 3-02/040.20 - Kin Care; (23) 3-02/050.05 - Employees' Safety Responsibilities; (24)
20 3-02/050.10 - Supervisors' Safety Responsibilities; (25) 3-02/050.15 - Managers' Safety
21 Responsibilities; (26) 3-10/040.00 - Prohibited Force.
22 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
23 58. Plaintiff presented a Tort Claim to COLA on June 23, 2020. COLA notified Plaintiff that
24 his Tort Claim was being investigated by way of letter dated June 30, 2020. COLA did not act on the
25 claim within 45 days after the claim had been presented, and the claim is therefore deemed to have been
26 rejected by COLA on the 45th day pursuant to Gov. Code § 912.4. As no notice of rejection was
27
28
17
1 transmitted to Plaintiff in accordance with Gov. Code § 913, this action is being brought within two
2 years from the accrual of the subject causes of action pursuant to Gov. Code § 945.6(a)(2).
3 59. A Right-to-Sue Letter was timely obtained from the Department of Fair Employment and
4 Housing on September 15, 2020 on behalf of Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of this Right-to-Sue
5 Letter is heretofore attached as “EXHIBIT 1”.
6 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
7 FEHA DISCRIMINATION: DISPARATE TREATMENT
8 (Gov. Code § 12940(a))
9 (Against All Defendants)
10 60. Plaintiff realleges, and incorporates herein by their reference, each and every allegation
11 contained in the foregoing Paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. Further, all allegations
12 set forth in this cause of action are pled upon information and belief, unless otherwise stated.
13 61. Defendants were employers.
14 62. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.
15 63. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to one or more of the following adverse employment
16 actions: (1) asked impermissible non-job-related questions; (2) demoted; (3) denied any employment
17 benefit or privilege; (4) denied family care or medical leave (CFRA); (5) denied hire or promotion; (6)
18 denied or forced to transfer; (7) denied work opportunities or assignments; or (8) reprimanded.
19 64. One or more of the Plaintiff’s following protected statuses was/were a substantial
20 motivating reason for Defendants to subject Plaintiff to these adverse employment actions: (1)
21 association with a member of a protected class; or (2) family care or medical leave (CFRA).
22 65. Plaintiff was harmed.
23 66. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
24 //
25
26
27
28
18
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FEHA DISABILITY-BASED ASSOCIATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
3 (Gov. Code §§ 12926(o), 12940(a))
8 68. Defendants were employers.
10 70. Plaintiff is the father of a disabled daughter who has diabetes.
11 71. His disabled daughter’s diabetes was costly to Defendants because Plaintiff had to
12 arrange his schedule and days off to provide medical care to his daughter, resulting in scheduling
13 conflicts for other deputies and the expenditure of additional taxpayer funds as a result of the scheduling
14 conflicts.
15 72. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to one or more of the following adverse employment
16 actions as a result: (1) asked impermissible non-job-related questions; (2) demoted; (3) denied any
17 employment benefit or privilege; (4) denied family care or medical leave (CFRA); (5) denied hire or
18 promotion; (6) denied or forced to transfer; (7) denied work opportunities or assignments; or (8)
19 reprimanded.
20 73. Plaintiff’s association with his disabled daughter was a substantial motivating reason for
21 Defendants to subject Plaintiff to one or more of these adverse employment actions.
23 75. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
24 //
25
26
27
28
19
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FEHA WORK ENVIRONMENT HARASSMENT
3 (Gov. Code § §§ 12923, 12940(j))
9 78. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because of one or more of the
10 following protected statuses applicable to them: (1) association with a member of a protected class; or
11 (2) family care or medical leave (CFRA).
12 79. The harassing conduct was severe or pervasive.
13 80. A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the work
14 environment to be hostile or abusive.
15 81. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive.
16 82. Either: (1) a supervisor engaged in the conduct; or (2) Defendants, or its supervisors or
17 agents knew, or should have known, of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate
18 corrective action.
20 84. The conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 FEHA RETALIATION
23 (GOV. CODE § 12940(h))
28
20
1 86. Plaintiff engaged in one or more of the following protective activities: (1) participated as
2 a witness in a discrimination or harassment; (2) reported or resisted any form of discrimination or
3 harassment; or (3) requested or used leave under the California Family Rights Act or FMLA.
4 87. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to the following adverse employment actions as a result:
5 (1) asked impermissible non-job-related questions; (2) demoted; (3) denied any employment benefit or
6 privilege; (4) denied family care or medical leave (CFRA); (5) denied hire or promotion; (6) denied or
7 forced to transfer; (7) denied work opportunities or assignments; or (8) reprimanded.
8 88. Plaintiff’s protected activities were a substantial motivating reason for Defendants’
9 conduct.
11 90. Defendants’ decision to subject Plaintiff to these adverse employment actions was a
12 substantial factor in causing them harm.
13 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 FEHA FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION, OR RETALIATION
15 (GOV. CODE § 12940(h))
21 93. Plaintiff was subjected to harassment, discrimination, or retaliation in the course of
22 employment.
23 94. Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, discrimination,
24 or retaliation.
26 96. Defendants failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, discrimination,
27 or retaliation was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
28
21
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
3 (Lab. Code § 1102.5)
8 98. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) provides, in pertinent part, “[a]n employer, or any person acting
9 on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because
10 the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law
11 enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the
12 authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, . . . if the employee has
13 reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a
14 violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether
15 disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties.” This statute reflects the broad public
16 policy interest in encouraging workplace whistleblowers to report unlawful acts without fearing
17 retaliation.
18 99. Defendants were employers for purposes of California law.
19 100. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants, performing work on behalf of Defendants.
20 Defendants subjected Plaintiff to the following adverse employment actions: (1) asked impermissible
21 non-job-related questions; (2) demoted; (3) denied any employment benefit or privilege; (4) denied
22 family care or medical leave (CFRA); (5) denied hire or promotion; (6) denied or forced to transfer;
23 (7) denied work opportunities or assignments; or (8) reprimanded.
24 101. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to the foregoing adverse employment actions in retaliation
25 for engaging in protected activities, including, but not limited to protesting or opposing violations of the
26 following LASD Manual of Policies and Procedures policies: (1) 3-01/000.10 - Professional Conduct;
27 (2) 3-01/010.50 - Manner of Exercising Authority; (3) 3-01/020.30 - Responsibility for Subordinate
28
22
1 Supervisors; (4) 3-01/020.35 - Organizational Control; (5) 3-01/020.60 - Responsibility for
2 Subordinates; (6) 3-01/020.70 - Responsibility for Conduct of Subordinates; (7) 3-01/030.05 - General
3 Behavior; (8) 3-01/030.06 - Disorderly Conduct; (9) 3-01/030.07 - Immoral Conduct; (10) 3-01/030.10
4 - Obedience to Laws, Regulations, and Orders; (11) 3-01/030.15 - Conduct Toward Others; (12) 3-
5 01/030.23 - Workplace Violence; (13) 3-01/030.26 - Violation of Workplace Violence Policy; (14) 3-
6 01/030.27 – Retaliation; (15) 3-01/030.28 - Reporting of Workplace Violence and/or Retaliation; (16)
7 3-01/030.29 - Supervisor Responsibilities; (17) 3-01/030.73 – Hazing; (18) 3-01/040.95 - Confidential
8 Information; (19) 3-01/050.83 - Employee Groups which Violate Rights of Other Employees or
9 Members of the Public; (20) 3-01/075.00 - Personal Relationships Between Department Members; (21)
10 3-02/010.17 - Swapping of RDO/Shifts; (22) 3-02/040.20 - Kin Care; (23) 3-02/050.05 - Employees'
11 Safety Responsibilities; (24) 3-02/050.10 - Supervisors' Safety Responsibilities; (25) 3-02/050.15 -
12 Managers' Safety Responsibilities; (26) 3-10/040.00 - Prohibited Force.
13 102. Further, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to the foregoing adverse employment actions in
14 retaliation for engaging in protected activities, including, but not limited to protesting or opposing
15 violations of one or more of the following state or federal statutes, or a violation of or noncompliance
16 with one or more of the following local, state, or federal rule or regulation: (1) 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968
17 – Racketeering; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights; (3) Pen. Code § 240 – Assault; (4)
18 Pen. Code § 243d – Aggravated Battery; (5) Pen. Code § 245 – Assault with a Deadly Weapon; (6) Pen.
19 Code § 136.1 – Dissuading a Witness; (7) Los Angeles County Police of Equity, Policies, Procedures
20 and Guidelines § 910 on cooperation with administrative investigations; (8) Los Angeles County Board
21 of Supervisors Policy Manual 9.020 on employee accountability; (9) Los Angeles County Board of
22 Supervisors Policy Manual 9.010 on Equal Employment Opportunity and Non-Discrimination; (10) Los
23 Angeles County Civil Service Rule 25 on merit system employment; (11) Los Angeles County Code
24 5.08 on equal employment opportunity; (12) Los Angeles County Code 5.10 on the policy of diversity;
25 (13) the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; or (14) the California Family Rights Act.
26 103. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5, Defendants are also liable for a civil penalty not
27 exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this section.
28
23
1 104. All allegations made pursuant to this cause of action were continuing violations that
2 transpired over a period of time to include the applicable period covered by the timely government claim
3 made by Plaintiff as against Defendants.
4 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 BANE ACT
6 (Civ. Code § 52.1)
11 106. Defendants or their agents made threats of violence against Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to
12 reasonably believe that if he exercised his right to engage in protected whistleblowing activities,
13 Defendants or their agents would commit violence against Plaintiff or his property, and that Defendants
14 or their agents had the apparent ability to carry out the threats.
16 108. Defendants or their agents’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
17 109. All allegations made pursuant to this cause of action were continuing violations that
18 transpired over a period of time to include the applicable period covered by the timely government claim
19 made by Plaintiff as against Defendants.
20 //
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as against Defendants as follows, for:
3 1) Compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
4 2) Past economic losses in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
5 3) Future economic loses in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
6 4) Past non-economic damages in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
7 5) Future non-economic damages in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
8 6) A civil penalty of $10,000 for every violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5.
9 7) Attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to all applicable statutes or legal principles, including, but not
10 limited to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 in the
11 event that this case is deemed to have resulted in a significant benefit to the general public or a large
12 class of persons.
13 8) Civil penalties pursuant to statute.
14 9) Costs of suit incurred.
15 10) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
16
17 ROMERO LAW, APC
18
19 Dated: September 17, 2020 ____________/s/____________
20 Alan Romero (SBN 249000)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
Plaintiff hereby makes demand for Jury Trial and has timely posted the jury fee deposit.
3
ROMERO LAW, APC
4
5
6 Dated: September 17, 2020 ____________/s/____________
7 Alan Romero (SBN 249000)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
EXHIBIT 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: [email protected]
September 15, 2020
Alan Romero
80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880
Pasadena, CA 91101
RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

DFEH Matter Number: 202009-11261516
Right to Sue: Gonzalez / County of Los Angeles
Dear Alan Romero:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for
information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice
of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing


September 15, 2020
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit.
This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of
the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to DFEH is requested or required.
Sincerely,


September 15, 2020
Austreberto Gonzalez
80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880
Pasadena, California 91101
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Austreberto Gonzalez:
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective
September 15, 2020 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH
will take no further action on the complaint.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,

1 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
3
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
4
In the Matter of the Complaint of
5 Austreberto Gonzalez DFEH No. 202009-11261516
6 Complainant,
vs.
7
8 County of Los Angeles
500 W. Temple Street, Suite 383
9 Los Angeles, California 90012
10 Respondents
11
1. Respondent County of Los Angeles is an employer County of Los Angeles subject to
12
suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et
13 seq.).
14 2.
3. Complainant Austreberto Gonzalez, resides in the City of Pasadena, State of
15 California.
16 4. Complainant alleges that on or about September 15, 2020, respondent took the
following adverse actions:
17
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's family care or medical leave (cfra)
18
(employers of 50 or more people), association with a member of a protected class.
19
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's family care or medical
20 leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people), association with a member of a protected
class and as a result of the discrimination was denied hire or promotion, reprimanded,
21 demoted, asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied any employment benefit or
privilege, denied family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people),
22 denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
23 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form

of discrimination or harassment, participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment
24 complaint, requested or used leave under the california family rights act or fmla (employers
of 50 or more people) and as a result was denied hire or promotion, reprimanded, demoted,
25 asked impermissible non-job-related questions, denied any employment benefit or privilege,
26
27 -1-
Complaint – DFEH No. 202009-11261516
28 Date Filed: September 15, 2020
1 denied family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people), denied work
opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
2
3 Additional Complaint Details: See attachment.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -2-
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Alan Romero, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
3
on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
4
On September 15, 2020, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
5 of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
6 Pasadena, CA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -3-
1. Plaintiff has been employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
(“LASD”) as a Deputy Sheriff since November 2007, and has spent the past 5 ½ years as a patrol
Deputy at Compton Station (“CPT”).
2. Plaintiff is a decorated Marine Corps combat veteran who was also decorated with
a Meritorious Conduct Silver Medal at the 2018 LASD Valor Awards for, along with his partner,
saving the life of a 4 year old boy who had been shot in the head.
3. Plaintiff is also the parent of a medically fragile daughter, Caitlynne Gonzalez, born
in 2005. Caitlynne is severely diabetic and requires regular shots of insulin and glucose testing
approximately 10 times a day. Plaintiff has a court-ordered visitation schedule, and on those days
he is responsible for caring for Caitlynne, he is her medical caregiver by injecting her with insulin
and performing regular blood glucose level testing. Plaintiff is certified in diabetic education by
the Children’s Hospital of Orange County. If Caitlynne had to stay at home at Plaintiff’s home
without him present to medically attend to her, the child could possibly die due to neglect. Caring
for Caitlynne was a full time job for the parent who was taking care of her. Caitlynne also suffers
from Celiac disease which is a serious autoimmune disease resulting in the inability to ingest gluten
without damage to the small intestine. This is a chronic condition for which there is no cure. As a
result, Caitlynne’s has severe dietary restrictions that must be complied with. Caitlynne’s parents
prepare most of her food at home to ensure the absence of gluten and the absence of cross-
contamination during meal preparation. She is under the ongoing care of an endocrinologist to
manage both her diabetes and Celiac.
4. CPT has been permeated by a violent Deputy gang which calls itself “The
Executioners.” The Executioners operate at CPT with impunity, its members using violence
against other Deputies and members of the public in order to increase their standing within the
criminal organization. The Executioners recruit members at CPT based upon the prospect’s use
of violence against suspects or other Deputies. Nearly all the CPT Deputies who have been
involved in high-profile shootings and out-of-policy beatings at CPT in recent years have been
“inked” members of The Executioners. “Inking” refers to the act of each newly made member of
The Executioners receiving a matching tattoo indicating membership in the organization, the tattoo
consisting of a skull with Nazi imagery, holding an AK-47, a gun most commonly utilized by gang
members, and not any law enforcement agency. Members become inked as “Executioners” after
executing members of the public, or otherwise committing acts of violence in furtherance of the
gang. Deputies involved in fatal shootings at CPT have immediately been inked, with the
organization having “inking parties” to celebrate Executioner member-involved shootings as well
as the induction of new members. Of approximately 100 patrol Deputies at CPT, an estimated 20
are inked members of The Executioners, with another 20 being considered “prospects” or are
otherwise close associates of the gang. The gang members communicate exclusively through
WhatsApp, an encrypted messaging app on their phones, a technique used by criminals such as
drug traffickers and terrorists. The Executioners do not allow African-American or female
members.
5. The Executioners, led by inked “shotcaller” Deputy Jaime Juarez, have paralyzed
CPT through their use of violence against Deputies, and threats of illegal “work slowdowns,” by
which Executioners members, and associates at CPT, will purposefully cease some or all of their
law enforcement duties, while continuing to be paid, in order to impose their will upon CPT by
force. One such work slowdown occurred in 2019, when shotcaller Juarez, a Deputy, confronted
Acting CPT Captain Larry Waldie. Juarez informed Waldie that he, and by extension The
Executioners gang that he presided over, was demanding that the Training and Scheduling Deputy,
Wanda Valiente, be replaced with an inked member of The Executioners. Deputy Anthony
Bautista. The Training and Scheduling Deputy position was enormously desirable to the gang, as
that position would be able to dole out preferred shifts to inked gang members, as well as provide
them with any days off that they would desire… all to the extreme prejudice of non-gang members
who would be disparately and negatively impacted by the most desirable schedules being funneled
exclusively to the gang. Lt. Waldie immediately put his foot down and advised Juarez that he
would not be intimidated into carrying out his duties based upon the desires of The Executioners.
In retaliation, Juarez, The Executioners, and their associates at CPT implemented the threatened
work slowdown, wreaking havoc at CPT and resulting in enormous losses to County taxpayers
and these individuals who participated in the slowdown received their full public salaries for doing
little or no work. Lt. Waldie, after notifying his superior, Captain Michael Thatcher instigated the
punitive transfer of gang leader Juarez to Industry Station, but Lt. Waldie was later overruled, and
Juarez was allowed to return to his gang home base at CPT.
6. In 2016, Plaintiff attempted to get scheduled to have certain days off so that he
could provide medical care to his daughter, Caitlynne on those dates. At this time, Juarez was the
Training and Scheduling Deputy, who operated the Station scheduling in a manner to benefit his
gang. Plaintiff, a non-member of the gang, was refused these days off by Juarez. Plaintiff had no
other option at this point but to go out on CFRA/FMLA leave, as his superiors with whom he
discussed his situation with, refused to, or otherwise lacked the ability to confront Juarez, as he
was the leader of the Station gang and rarely subject to meaningful supervision or control by his
superiors due to his gang ties.
7. At this time, gang shotcaller Juarez, as the Training and Scheduling Deputy,
changed Plaintiff’s schedule to the “early morning shift,” to accommodate an Executioners gang
member, all of whom received preferential scheduling consideration over non-gang members or
associates. Plaintiff was one of those non-gang members who experienced an adverse employment
action as a result of his refusal to cooperate with the gang. Plaintiff protested this change, as the
new work days would make it impossible for him to comply with this existing visitation order to
provide medical care for Caitlynne on certain days of the month. Juarez refused to reconsider the
schedule change, as Juarez was giving the preferred schedule to Deputy Jesus Sandoval, an inked
Executioner. This change of schedule meant that Plaintiff would have different days off, and
therefore could no longer provide care to his diabetic daughter on dates previously ordered by
Court. Juarez taunted Plaintiff when being informed of Caitlynne’s medical needs: “it’s not going
to happen… you either take the new shift and schedule I’m giving you or take your FMLA” It
was then that Plaintiff informed Juarez that if forced to, he would take CFRA/FMLA leave in order
to care for his severely ill daughter. Plaintiff protested to his supervisor, Sgt. Lopez, then the
Scheduling and Training Sgt at CPT, but Lopez refused to consider the basis for Plaintiff’s
objection and informed him that he would support Juarez’s erroneous decision.
8. Plaintiff then took 6-8 weeks off as PTO, constituting his CFRA/FMLA leave.
Plaintiff would not have been forced to burn PTO if he had been allowed a reasonable
accommodation in scheduling to care for his ill daughter on days that had been predetermined by
court order. Plaintiff was denied this benefit of employment due to scheduling preference for
Executioners gang members at CPT.
9. The Executioners also had a pattern and practice of showing preference to
prospective members as soon as they were assigned to CPT. Once identified as prospects to
become inked members, newly assigned CPT Deputies were allowed to partner up with inked
members right away, when all other newly minted patrol Deputies were required to work by
themselves for long periods of time. Further, prospects are allowed to skip assignment, or have
their assignments shortened, to the non-preferred traffic or Compton Town Center mall substation
detail. Plaintiff, as an example, was assigned to traffic duty for a period of 12-14 months, as he
was not interested in becoming a gang prospect.
10. Juarez eventually returned to CPT from his IDT transfer. This is believed to be an
act of gratitude shown by then Captain Thatcher to Juarez for assistance Juarez had previously
directed his gang and gang associates to provide to Thatcher.
11. In August or September 2017, there was a meeting with various Captains at the
Division level, and Thatcher was reprimanded for the arrest statistics being low at CPT. Thatcher
reacted by implementing an illegal arrest quota framework at CPT, in violation of California law
(see Veh. Code § 41602). Thatcher sought the assistance of Juarez and the gang, resulting in CPT
arrest statistics increasing by an approximate 300% within a month. This was the result of gang
members and their associates being directed by Juarez to begin arresting individuals for
misdemeanor matters that would have previously not resulted in an arrest, or not resulted in a
citation at all. Deputy Iliana Vargas, Juarez’s girlfriend, was sometimes partnered up with Plaintiff
during this period of time. During this period of time, Vargas would begin to make very unusual
misdemeanor arrests, usually arresting an individual and then immediately releasing them in the
field for no other purpose but to juke the arrest statistics as a favor from the gang to Thatcher.
12. Several weeks later, Lt. John Wargo held a briefing and informed all Deputies that
their stats were low compared to other stations in the Division. Plaintiff was present when Wargo
told all the Deputies present at the briefing that it was their job to arrest people, “so go do your
job.” After this meeting, Deputies with low arrest numbers were retaliated against and punished
by having to work undesirable details such as working the front desk, traffic detail, or the Compton
Town Center mall substation.
13. Days after the Wargo briefing where the Deputies were illegally ordered to meet
arrest quotas or face punishment, Plaintiff along with Deputies Jonathan Alcala and Gabriel
Guzman complained about the illegality of the quota order to the Acting Watch Commander, Sgt.
Andy Leos, as the unlawful idea to punish Deputies with low arrest stats originated from Juarez
and Leos. When confronted by the Deputies and asked if undesirable assignments were being
improperly used as punishment for not meeting illegal arrest quotas, Leos admitted, “yes, you
should have known that by now.” Leos further stated that if someone had a problem with the new
quota program, that they were welcome to come to his office so that Leos could show them their
“low stats.” Leos raised his voice to Plaintiff and Deputies Alcala and Guzman and told them to
“do your job, I’m trying to save your career.” Alcala protested and said he was doing his job, to
service calls for assistance from the public. As a result of this interaction, Plaintiff, Alcala, and
Guzman were all reprimanded as punishment for protesting the illegal quota program and were
demoted and immediately put on a rotation to traffic duty. Alcala had been slated to promote to
the Special Assignments Office (“SAO”) at CPT, but after he protested to Leos, Leos informed
the Sergeant commanding SAO to refuse the transfer to Alcala.
14. Due to this illegal arrest quota regime, average arrests per Deputy immediately went
from approximately 2.5 arrests per month to approximately 7 arrests per month. This resulted in
the violation of the civil rights of hundreds of residents of the CPT patrol area for no other reason
but to insulate Thatcher from criticism from his Division. Finally, Thatcher called a meeting with
the patrol Deputies and told them he was pleased with the results and new, artificially inflated
arrest figures.
15. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff was recognized for his long and diligent service by
being promoted to a Field Training Officer (“FTO”). Plaintiff received 5% FTO pay increase.
Plaintiff’s first trainee was Deputy David Battles. Master FTO Saul Romero commended Plaintiff
for doing a good job of timely turning in his training Daily Observation Reports. On February 13,
2020, the month after Plaintiff completed his training of Battles, MFTO Romero told Plaintiff to
report to the LASD Patrol School so that Plaintiff could have the first opportunity to pick his next
trainee. Battles was an ideal patrol candidate and had excelled in, and completed, all but his final
training phase. At this time, he was failed out of training by inked Executioners member Deputy
Edwin Barajas. Plaintiff believes that Battles was retaliated against because of his association with
Plaintiff.
16. Thereafter, Gang member Deputy Eugene Contreras had returned to CPT after a
temporary assignment to the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”). Upon his return, he began extremely
aggressive, bullying behavior towards other Deputies with the intent of raising his standing within
the gang. Contreras is presently on the list to promote to Sergeant at CPT.
17. In February 2020, Contreras, now a FTO, threatened fellow FTO Deputy Thomas
Banuelos with violence. This led to an altercation in which Contreras assaulted Banuelos on-duty.
This assault was intended to further the reputation of the gang at CPT.
18. On February 8, 2020, Banuelos texted Plaintiff, who was another fellow FTO, and
informed him of Contreras’ violent conduct. Plaintiff was familiar with the aggressive behavior
of Contreras, who Plaintiff knew to be inked. A few days later, Plaintiff fulfilled his obligation to
report this violent incident anonymously to IAB. As Plaintiff would later learn, there was nothing
confidential about this report, as the Executioners gang had infiltrated IAB and would later obtain
a recording of his voice making the “anonymous” phone call to IAB. Within two days of the
anonymous call, inked members of The Executioners already knew it was Plaintiff who made the
call. While at a Patrol School training, Plaintiff was mortified when Deputy Alcala informed him
that “[The Executioners] are saying that it was you who called IA, and they can’t wait to get their
hands on the voice print of the call.” Plaintiff immediately realized that as Contreras had
previously worked at IAB, that a former co-worker at IAB had illegally warned Contreras of the
complaint. This put Plaintiff at severe risk of violent reprisal by the gang, so Plaintiff took several
days off from work.
19. After returning to work, Plaintiff was still struggling to process all of this
information. Plaintiff confided in his Operations Lieutenant, Lt. Ruiz, that he was the one who
had called IAB regarding Contreras, and that Plaintiff wanted to remain anonymous to the extent
possible. Plaintiff found himself in a worst-case scenario, as the entire CPT Station knew it was
him who had reported an inked member of The Executioners to IAB. Plaintiff knew that reprisal
by the gang was inevitable as a result of the leak of his identity to The Executioners. Plaintiff
requested a week off of work due to his well-founded fear of violent attack by the gang. During
this week off, Deputy Alcala text messaged Plaintiff a photo of graffiti in a very visible place in
the Station which read: “ART IS A RAT”. This confirmed that IAB had been penetrated and
compromised by the criminal organization, and that his identity had been leaked despite LASD
Department policies which purported to protect the identity of anonymous whistleblowers. This
has the practical effect of calling the integrity of the entire IAB and anonymous reporting program
into question.
20. Complainant went back to Lt. Ruiz, as he was afraid he would be violently assaulted
by the gang, as they had assaulted Banuelos. Complainant took a week off, he spoke with CPT
Captain LaTonya Clark and again memorialized his fear of violent reprisal by the gang. Clark told
Plaintiff that two investigators wanted to talk to him regarding his anonymous IAB complaint.
Plaintiff agreed, as his protected identity had already been compromised. Clark told Plaintiff that
the investigators were not from IAB, but rather part of a special detail from the Office of the
Executive.
21. The next day, the two investigators arrived at the Station, unannounced, and
informed the front desk that they were there to speak with Plaintiff. Again, this was a worst-case
scenario, as their presence became known to the entire station, and especially inked gang member
Deputy Bautista, who was serving as the Watch Deputy that day, and informed Plaintiff’s partner,
Deputy Adrian Garcia, that “two IA investigators are here to talk to Gonzalez, so get over here.”
22. At this first meeting, Gonzalez told the investigators everything he knew about the
Contreras assault. He did, however, reiterate the fact that the wanted to remain anonymous, and
that he didn’t want his name associated with the anonymous call due to the threat of violent
retaliation from inked Deputies at this station. The investigators told Plaintiff that they may want
to meet him again, but Plaintiff protested and told the investigators that any future meetings would
have to be done away from CPT Station, out of fear of retaliation. Plaintiff became aware that Lt.
Ruiz had forwarded the photo of the threatening graffiti identifying Plaintiff to the investigators.
23. In late February 2020, after returning from his week off from work, Plaintiff was
approached by Scheduling Sergeant Frank Barragan, and was taken upstairs to the Conference
Room. Barragan reprimanded Plaintiff for taking intermittent CFRA/FMLA 3-5 days per month
to care for his ill daughter, Caitlynne. Barragan informed Plaintiff that he was being demoted from
his FTO position. Plaintiff protested, asserting his rights under the law. Barragan replied to
Plaintiff that, “it would be a disservice to your trainee if you are taking FMLA days off.” This
was inaccurate because when Plaintiff was training Battles, Plaintiff didn’t take a single day off
for medical leave. Plaintiff had taken several unscheduled days off during this period of time to
care for Caitlynne, and these days had been approved. This had not resulted in any meaningful
disruption in his training of Battles, nor would such leave interfere with the training of any future
Deputy under Plaintiff’s supervision. Further, it was common practice for other FTOs at CPT to
miss 1-2 days of work a week, or even taken an entire week off while a trainee has been assigned
to them. It was clear that the only reason for this demotion was as retaliation for his having taking
protected medical leave, but more importantly, because of his protected whistleblower activities
against the Station gang-in-residence. Plaintiff, suffered a 5% reduction in pay as a result of this
retaliatory demotion meaning that he will not have any trainees assigned to him.
24. At this meeting where Sgt. Barragan reprimanded Plaintiff for taking protected
leave, Plaintiff was given an ultimatum. Barragan informed Plaintiff that, “there are two ways to
do this, you can voluntarily not take trainees and the other way is we start documenting.” Plaintiff
understood this to be a threat by which if Plaintiff did not acquiesce to the demotion from his FTO
position, that Sgt. Barragan and others would begin the process of “documenting” Plaintiff for
discipline and inevitable demotion and/or termination. Resultantly, Plaintiff signed a memo that
Sgt. Barragan had prepared prior to the meeting which stated that Plaintiff voluntarily was
relinquishing his FTO position due to his need to take protected leave to care for his daughter.
Plaintiff had no choice in signing this document, as he had been effectively ordered by his direct
superior to sign the document or lose his job. On or about this time, Sgt. Barragan authorized the
hiring of “temporary” FTOs and the “temporary” FTO position was offered to Juarez and other
members, or prospects, of The Executioners. Plaintiff believes that Juarez exercised the power of
the gang to control who would be eligible for an FTO position, and to retaliate against Plaintiff as
a result of his IAB complaint against the gang.
25. As of now, no other Deputy at CPT will partner with Plaintiff due to his being
targeted for retaliation by The Executioners. Further, the inked Deputy in dispatch, Bautista, began
a pattern and practice of slamming Plaintiff with excessive calls compared to other Deputies on
the same shift. Plaintiff complained to his supervisor, Lt. Ruiz about the excessive calls for service.
Lt. Ruiz’s response was “I can forward this as a POE (policy of equality) violation to “the Intake”
(the intake of complaints handled by IAB). Plaintiff did not see this as a viable option given that
IAB had already leaked the voice print from his whistleblower call and he requested Lt. Ruiz not
make that referral. Lt. Ruiz expressed frustration and asked Plaintiff to leave his office, despite the
fact that Lt. Ruiz had previously assured Plaintiff that if he ever felt retaliated against, to please
come and ask Lt. Ruiz for assistance.
26. Plaintiff met with the investigators a second time, this time at the Long Beach
Police Department. Plaintiff asked the investigators if he put his name on the complaint, how long
would it take for Contreras to learn his identity. The investigators assured Plaintiff that it would
be months until Contreras would learn his identity. Previous to this meeting, Plaintiff had asked
Captain Clark if he could be transferred to another Station. Captain Clark offered Plaintiff an
immediate or “overnight” transfer to East LA Station, but Plaintiff declined due to the fact that this
would cement his identity as the whistleblower to the gang. Plaintiff instead requested a standard
transfer to Pico Rivera Station (a separate Division), the opportunity for which was coming up in
several months. In the end, Plaintiff was denied this transfer.
27. On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff was assigned to a “Memorial Detail”, by which
Deputies stand guard for one-hour shifts at a location where a police officer has been slain.
Plaintiff was assigned to stand guard until 3:00PM, which was the time that his shift was due to
end. Resultantly, Plaintiff did not finish his shift until one hour after his scheduled end time: at
4:00PM. Plaintiff went to his Operations Lieutenant, Lt. Ruiz and Lt. Nicole Palomino, the Watch
Commander. Both Lieutenants denied Plaintiff’s legitimate request for overtime, claiming that
such overtime was required to be preauthorized. This was not common practice, as CPT Deputies
are regularly paid overtime in situations where they are legitimately held over past the end of their
shift.
28. During Mid-March to Early April 2020, the Scheduling Sergeant, Sgt. Barragan
called Plaintiff and informed him that Contreras would be coming to the same day shift as Plaintiff.
This obviously belied the fact that Plaintiff’s identity as the whistleblower was known to Barragan,
Contreras, and others at CPT. Barragan requested that Plaintiff switch to the “early morning”
graveyard shift, and that Plaintiff would be given whatever days he wanted off. Plaintiff refused,
informing Barragan that it would not allow him to care for his medically fragile daughter,
Caitlynne. Barragan queried Plaintiff: “do you have a problem with [Contreras] working the same
shift as you?” Plaintiff realized that he would not be allowed to mind his own business, and that
he would not be able to avoid interactions with Executioners gang members while a Deputy at
CPT.
29. Two weeks later, Lt. Ruiz informed Plaintiff that he could be removed from Patrol
and go on loan to the CPT Detective Bureau (“DB”), and be tasked with filing cases on behalf of
the Station at the Compton Courthouse. Plaintiff was not requesting to be reassigned but it became
clear that Contreras was coming to day shift no matter what and there was no way to stop that.
This is another way in which the Executioners are accommodated. Realizing that Plaintiff’s only
options were to be involuntarily transferred to DB or to be punitively placed on the early morning
shift that would not allow him to care for his daughter, he accepted the reassignment to DB so he
could preserve his schedule of work hours and days off. Importantly, Sgt. Barragan never offered
the option of PM shift, as PMs is heavily staffed by inked deputies. Plaintiff also saw this as an
opportunity to distance himself from The Executioners at CPT and so he accepted the assignment.
However, The Executioners’ presence was felt in the new assignment as Deputy Bautista was also
on loan to DB. The pencil holder, mouse, and mouse pad at Deputy Bautista’s desk displayed the
Executioners tattoo logo. Deputy Bautista’s computer screen saver was a taunting
picture/message. The picture showed a black and white police vehicle with the Sheriff’s Dept.
logo on it, surrounded by with what appears to be detained gang members posing for a picture.
The caption on the picture was “Some people worked Compton, others just claimed they did!!!”
This message was purposefully displayed in an area that Plaintiff dropped off case tracking sheets
for the detectives at each of their desks each day and Plaintiff believes it was intended as a
warning/reminder to all personnel at the station of the Executioners’ presence and span of control.
30. Most recently, on a phone call with Plaintiff, Deputy Alcala informed Plaintiff that
a few months before, Deputy Sergio Jimenez had informed Alcala that he had been approached by
a member of the Special Enforcement Bureau (“SEB”) at CPT who claimed that he had a copy of
the recording of Plaintiff’s call to IAB. The SEB Deputy told Jimenez, “[Plaintiff] is saying all
kinds of things and name-dropping, do you want to hear it?” Deputy Alcala told Plaintiff that
Jimenez had told the SEB Deputy that he was not interested in hearing the recording, and told
Alcala that he didn’t want to be involved in these events.
31. Further, an associate of the gang, Deputy Brian Avalos, was, as a result of his
relationship with the gang, promoted to Watch Deputy: a position that Plaintiff had tested for, and
by seniority rules should have gone to Plaintiff. Instead, the position was given to Avalos due to
the fact that he had had a restraining order issued against him that prohibited him from carrying a
firearm on-duty, and the Watch Deputy position allowed him to collect his salary while not
carrying a gun and not going out on patrol. Plaintiff was 100% entitled to this position, as the only
deputy with more seniority than him who qualified for the position was Deputy Mike Miller, who
declined the position. According to LASD policy and COLA Civil Service rules, the Watch
Deputy position promotion should have gone to Plaintiff. Instead LASD allowed the gang to fill
it with one of its associates in derogation of Plaintiff’s rights.
32. The aforementioned unlawful acts were undertaken by LASD employees in
derogation of the rights of Plaintiff.
33. Plaintiff has been subject to harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and disparate
treatment as a result of his protected status(es).
34. These acts constitute violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act and the California Labor Code, including, but not limited to, Labor Code §§ 98.6 & 1102.5.
Further, these acts violate the LASD Manual of Policies and Procedures. Plaintiff has been
damaged in an amount to be determined at time of trial. Plaintiff has experienced economic and
non-economic damages in an amount set forth in this claim form. Plaintiff’s damages are ongoing
and include, but are not limited to, the salary differential between his present position and the
position that he would have been promoted to were it not for the illegal interference of LASD in
violation of the County Charter and Civil Service Rule 25.

206 Gonzalez - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

206 Gonzalez - Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20STCV35594

Alan Romero (SBN 249000)

11 UNLIMITED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

September 15, 2020

RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

Dear Alan Romero:

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

September 15, 2020

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

No response to DFEH is requested or required.

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

September 15, 2020

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Austreberto Gonzalez:

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

23 Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form

You might also like