Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles
202 Cal. App. 4th 1207
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Joaquin, an LAPD officer, alleged Sands sexually harassed him in 2003–2004 and 2005; internal affairs investigated and found the claims unfounded.
- Sands later filed a complaint against Joaquin for filing a false harassment charge; a board of rights conducted a de novo hearing.
- The board found Joaquin guilty of count 1 (retaliation by filing a false complaint) and recommended termination; the chief terminated him in 2006.
- Joaquin won a writ of mandate reinstating him in 2009; he claimed retaliation under FEHA for protected activity (harassment reporting).
- A jury awarded Joaquin over $2 million for lost wages and emotional distress; the City appealed, contending lack of substantial evidence of retaliatory intent.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding Joaquin did not present substantial evidence that termination was motivated by retaliatory animus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retaliation requires retaliatory animus by decision-makers | Joaquin argues causation is enough; board conceded link. | City argues must prove actual retaliatory intent by decision-makers; board lacked animus evidence. | Retaliation requires proof of retaliatory intent; insufficient animus shown. |
| Whether a false harassment claim can justify termination under FEHA | False reporting should be protected; cannot shield from discipline. | False harassment claims justify discipline if proven; not insulated by protection. | Employer may discipline for false charges if supported by evidence and proper process. |
| Whether the board of rights proceedings tainted by retaliatory motive | Inner investigation and board were driven by retaliation and ignored evidence favorable to Joaquin. | Board de novo proceeding insulated from prior internal investigation; lack of direct evidence of taint. | No substantial evidence the board proceeding harbored retaliatory motive. |
| Whether the jury instruction on retaliation adequately framed intent under FEHA | CACI 2505 omission of explicit intent element could mislead jurors. | Instruction did not resolve the substantial evidence issue; intent required but not clearly stated. | Instruction flaw identified; court urges redrafting to require retaliation intent as element. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richey v. City of Independence, 540 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2008) (employer may rely on good-faith belief of misconduct; McDonnell Douglas framework applies)
- Total System Services, Inc., 221 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2000) (employer may terminate for lying in internal investigation if based on good faith belief)
- Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (presumption framework; burden shifting in FEHA retaliation cases)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (adopts McDonnell Douglas framework in FEHA retaliation)
- McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 142 Cal.App.4th 377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (emphasizes weighing the weight of evidence and inferences for substantial evidence)
- Hatmaker v. Memorial Medical Center, 619 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2010) (employer can discipline for frivolous or false charges; retaliation not immunized)