15 Cal. App. 5th 338
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- In March 2010 Officers George Diego and Allan Corrales (both Hispanic) fatally shot an unarmed Black man (reported autistic). Corrales fired the fatal shot.
- LAPD 72-hour review kept them out of field duty; FID and Chief Beck found their use of force "in policy" but tactics administratively disapproved; Police Commission later found the use of force "out of policy." Chief Beck declined to return them to patrol.
- Officers were assigned non-field work, continued to receive salary (minus small patrol bonus), and were denied some promotions/off-duty armed details because they lacked field certification.
- Officers sued the City alleging race discrimination (claiming they were benched because they are Hispanic and the victim was Black) and retaliation for filing suit; jury awarded nearly $4M.
- On appeal the Court held the Officers tried the case partly on the theory that the City’s consideration of the victim’s race supported a discrimination claim against the Officers; the court concluded that theory is legally flawed and reversed for a directed verdict for the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports race discrimination under Govt. Code §12940(a) | Diego/Corrales: LAPD treated them differently (benched) because they are Hispanic and the victim was Black; pointed to Bua (White officer who shot Hispanic victim and returned to field) | City: Adverse actions were driven by risk-management/political concerns about community reaction and Commission oversight, not plaintiffs' race | Held: Insufficient evidence of discrimination based on Officers' race; plaintiff’s theory relying on victim’s race is legally improper and does not sustain §12940(a) claim |
| Whether consideration of victim’s race can support an employee race-discrimination claim | Plaintiffs argued any race-based consideration (including victim’s race) taints decision and supports liability | City argued employment-discrimination statutes protect employees because of their own protected status, not because of a third party’s race | Held: Employer may consider political/community implications (including victim’s race) without violating employment-discrimination law; plaintiffs cannot base a §12940(a) claim on victim’s race |
| Whether evidence showed pretext (City’s justifications were false) | Plaintiffs: initial in-policy findings, inconsistent treatment length, and comparisons to Bua showed pretext | City: Even if some explanations (tactics) were overstated, risk-management justification remains plausible and supported by record | Held: Even assuming pretext as to tactics, evidence did not permit reasonable inference that race (of plaintiffs) was a substantial motivating factor; risk-management explanation stands |
| Whether evidence supports retaliation claim under §12940(h) | Plaintiffs: continued benching and subsequent denials after filing suit show retaliatory motive | City: Benching predated suit and was ongoing for risk-management reasons; many complained/decisions occurred before suit so timing/causation lacking | Held: Insufficient evidence that filing suit was a substantial motivating factor; retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (California Supreme Court) (framework for prima facie burden-shifting in FEHA cases)
- Adams v. City of Fremont, 68 Cal.App.4th 243 (Court of Appeal) (standard for reviewing denial of directed verdict / substantial evidence review)
- Frank v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 805 (Court of Appeal) (evidence-of-pretext principles; inferences cannot be speculative)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. Supreme Court) (pretext and ultimate burden on plaintiff to prove discrimination)
- Slatkin v. University of Redlands, 88 Cal.App.4th 1147 (Court of Appeal) (employment decisions based on workplace politics are not FEHA discrimination absent protected-class motive)
- Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, 202 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Court of Appeal) (elements and proof of retaliation claims under FEHA)
- McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 142 Cal.App.4th 377 (Court of Appeal) (plaintiff’s subjective belief insufficient to prove motive)
- Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Court of Appeal) (explaining that plaintiff must show plaintiff’s race was substantial factor in adverse employment decision)