Hager v. County of Los Angeles CA2/3
176 Cal.Rptr.3d 268
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Darren Hager was a Los Angeles County deputy and DEA task force officer who reported information suggesting fellow deputy Richard Engels was linked to methamphetamine trafficking and the disappearance of Deputy Jonathan Aujay.
- Hager relayed informant and wiretap summaries up the LASD chain of command despite orders that the DEA task force not investigate deputy misconduct; he prepared summaries in 2000–2001 and reported to supervisors and homicide detective Brandenburg.
- Internal investigations (Holmes, IAB) concluded Hager’s sources were not credible and that he had conducted an unauthorized personnel inquiry and misstated wiretap information; Hager was subjected to Skelly hearings and terminated in 2003; he later received disability retirement for a separate neck/back injury.
- Hager sued the County under former Labor Code § 1102.5(b) for whistleblower retaliation; a jury awarded roughly $4.5 million (backpay, future lost earnings, and non-economic damages); the trial court denied the County’s new trial motion and denied Hager attorney fees under CCP § 1021.5.
- On appeal, the court affirmed liability but reversed the economic damages award for lack of substantial evidence that Hager could have returned to deputy work (backpay/front pay), and affirmed exclusion of the County’s evidence of undisclosed past conduct and the denial of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hager made a protected "disclosure" under former Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) | Hager argued his reports to LASD supervisors about deputy misconduct were protected disclosures even if LASD had prior knowledge | County argued Mize-Kurzman means reporting information already known to the employer is not a protected disclosure (advances a "first-report" rule) | Court held § 1102.5(b) protects such reports by public employees; Mize-Kurzman does not create a first-report limitation and the statute’s text and purpose support protection for reports to the employer. |
| Admissibility of County evidence about undisclosed past misconduct and Tyler’s undisclosed reasons for termination | Hager argued undisclosed incidents were irrelevant and prejudicial, barred by POBRA notice principles and Evidence Code § 352 | County argued it must be allowed to present all legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for termination in the civil case, even if not disclosed administratively | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion: undisclosed reasons were not relevant to charged policy violations and were substantially more prejudicial/ collateral under Evid. Code § 352; exclusion proper. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of pretext (terminating for false wiretap reports) | Hager argued inconsistencies and context (drug-code language, summaries vs. transcripts) supported jury inference of pretext | County argued wiretap inaccuracies and district court findings showed Hager falsely reported and no evidence rebuts that termination reason | Court held substantial evidence supports a finding of pretext as to the stated reason (jury could credit Hager’s explanations and find County’s explanation unworthy of credence). |
| Sufficiency of economic damages (backpay and future earnings) | Hager argued termination damaged his reputation and future earning capacity; economist calculated losses assuming return to deputy work | County argued Hager was on medical disability before termination and could not perform deputy duties absent speculative surgery; thus backpay/front pay lack support | Court held economic damages reversed: substantial evidence lacked that Hager was able or likely to return to deputy duties (backpay and front pay speculative), so award of $2,006,015 vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Cmty. Coll. Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussing scope of "disclosure" under § 1102.5)
- Patten v. Grant Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 134 Cal.App.4th 1378 (Cal. Ct. App.) (elements of whistleblower retaliation claim)
- Colores v. Bd. of Trustees, 105 Cal.App.4th 1293 (Cal. Ct. App.) (public employee report to employer qualifies as disclosure under § 1102.5)
- Huffman v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 263 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.) (federal whistleblower disclosure analysis relied on in Mize-Kurzman)
- Davis v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. Pers. Com., 152 Cal.App.4th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App.) (medical disability precluding backpay recovery)
- Brown v. County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal.App.4th 1529 (Cal. Ct. App.) (evidentiary rulings regarding undisclosed reasons for discipline; distinguished)
- Hersant v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 57 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standards for inferring pretext from employer inconsistencies)
- Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.4th 313 (Cal.) (POBRA notice and disciplinary process requirements)