Diego v. City of Los Angeles
B268266
Cal. Ct. App.
Sep 14, 2017

Background

  • In March 2010 LAPD Officers George Diego and Allan Corrales (both Hispanic) fatally shot an unarmed African‑American man, Steve Washington; Corrales’ shot killed him. The shooting raised public concern because the victim was reported to be autistic.
  • LAPD’s internal review process (72‑hour summary, FID, Use of Force Review Board, Chief, Police Commission, OIG oversight) ultimately found tactical failures; the Commission concluded the officers’ use of force and/or drawing were out of policy and recommended reprimands; Chief Beck concurred on tactics and withheld returning them to field duty.
  • The officers were reassigned to non‑field positions, continued to receive salary (minus a small patrol bonus), and were denied certain promotions and off‑duty armed work because they were not field certified. Officer Shane Bua (White), who shot a Hispanic suspect in 2010 and whose shooting was also found out‑of‑policy, returned to the field after about six weeks.
  • The officers sued the City claiming race discrimination (they were Hispanic) and retaliation for filing the lawsuit; at trial they emphasized that the victim’s race (African‑American) drove the Department’s decision to keep them benched and relied heavily on comparison to the Bua incident.
  • The jury found for the officers and awarded nearly $4 million, finding the officers’ race and filing of the lawsuit were substantial motivating reasons for adverse employment actions. The trial court had denied an oral directed verdict motion by the City and submitted the case to the jury.
  • The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the evidence was legally insufficient to support discrimination or retaliation because the officers’ trial theory improperly sought to base discrimination on the victim’s race and failed to show the officers were treated because of their own race or that the lawsuit motivated adverse action.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether evidence supported FEHA discrimination claim Diego/Corrales: LAPD considered race in benching — victim was Black; disparate treatment shown by Bua comparison City: FEHA protects employees’ race, not third‑party victims’ race; City made risk‑management/political decisions Reversed — insufficient evidence; plaintiff’s victim‑race theory not cognizable under FEHA and no competent evidence that officers’ Hispanic race was a substantial motivating reason
Whether jury could rely on victim’s race as basis for discrimination Officers: any decision influenced by race (including victim’s) is unlawful City: decisions about political/community risk are lawful nondiscriminatory reasons; victim’s race is not a protected basis for an officer’s employment claim Held for City — victim’s race cannot substitute for showing employer animus toward plaintiffs’ race
Whether evidence indicated pretext for City’s nondiscriminatory reasons Officers: tactical justifications were pretextual because use‑of‑force was found in‑policy by some reviewers; unusually long benching and denied promotions support pretext City: record shows risk management, community reaction, Police Commission dynamics justified benching; many officer admissions support those reasons Held for City — some pretext evidence existed but did not negate risk‑management justification or show race was substantial factor
Whether officers proved retaliation for filing suit Officers: benching continued after filing; denials of promotion/off‑duty work show retaliation City: benching preceded suit and continued for nondiscriminatory reasons; post‑filing events insufficient to show lawsuit was motivating factor Held for City — insufficient causation/animus; continuation of preexisting status cannot alone prove retaliation

Key Cases Cited

  • Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (establishes FEHA burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
  • Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff must persuade factfinder of intentional discrimination; disbelief of employer’s reasons alone is not always enough)
  • Frank v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 805 (definition and limits of substantial evidence and inferences in employment cases)
  • Adams v. City of Fremont, 68 Cal.App.4th 243 (standard for appellate review of denial of directed verdict; reversal appropriate when no substantial evidence supports verdict)
  • McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehab., 142 Cal.App.4th 377 (plaintiff’s subjective beliefs are insufficient to prove employer motivation)
  • Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 132 Cal.App.4th 359 (elements require that plaintiff’s race be a substantial factor in adverse action)
  • Slatkin v. Univ. of Redlands, 88 Cal.App.4th 1147 (adverse employment decisions based on workplace politics are not necessarily FEHA discrimination absent protected‑class animus)
  • Chen v. County of Orange, 96 Cal.App.4th 926 (political or nonprotected motives do not support discrimination claims)
  • Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, 202 Cal.App.4th 1207 (retaliation prima facie elements and causation analysis)
  • Quinn v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Cal.App.4th 472 (remedy when directed verdict was erroneously denied: enter judgment for defendant on appeal)
Read the full case