Rodriguez v. Cnty. of L. A.
| Decision Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | B304818,B307010 |
| Parties | ANDREW RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEALS from a judgment and postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC680213 Susan Bryant-Deason, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Miller Barondess, Mira Hashmall, Emily A. Rodriguez-Sanchirico, and Margret L. Flodeen, for Defendant and Appellant.
Craig T. Byrnes and Alan J. Romero, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Andrew Rodriguez, a deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the Sheriff's Department) and against defendant the County of Los Angeles (the County), on plaintiff's claims for hostile work environment harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov Code, § 12900 et seq.).[1] The trial court subsequently granted plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney fees.
On appeal, the County argues: there was insufficient evidence to support the verdicts; the jury instructions and special verdict form were erroneous and prejudiced the County; the $8.1 million damages award was not supported by the evidence and excessive; and the attorney fees award must be reversed if the judgment is reversed.
We conclude that although there was substantial evidence to support the verdicts, the judgment and attorney fees order must be reversed in light of the trial court's delivery of erroneous and prejudicial jury instructions. We will therefore remand this cause for a new trial.
On December 1, 2013, plaintiff, who had been employed by the Sheriff's Department since 2007, began a field patrol training program at the City of Industry Sheriff's station (Industry station). Prior to entering patrol training, plaintiff had been assigned to the Inmate Reception Center and courthouses.
Joanne Arcos was plaintiff's first training officer. Based on his training as a deputy, plaintiff formed the opinion that Arcos was initiating stops without reasonable suspicion. He also believed that she had engaged in the unlawful seizure of evidence.
On one occasion, plaintiff observed Arcos unlawfully seize drug paraphernalia from a suspect. When Arcos and plaintiff returned to the police station to prepare the arrest report, Arcos dictated to plaintiff what he should write. When plaintiff contradicted Arcos's recitation, Arcos became upset and raised her voice. Arcos then told plaintiff that she would take over writing the report and would not include plaintiff's name in it.
Plaintiff told Arcos on numerous occasions that he was concerned about her conduct. He also advised his superiors about Arcos's unlawful conduct.
Plaintiff was next assigned to field training officer Tim Nakamura. Plaintiff and Nakamura worked the night shift and Nakamura advised plaintiff that anyone out on the street after dark was "'up for grabs,'" meaning they could be detained unlawfully. Plaintiff observed Nakamura engage in numerous unlawful detentions: Nakamura stopped and searched a vehicle with four male Hispanic occupants; he detained a black woman in order to bring his arrest numbers up; and he detained three Hispanic men who were filling up their car at a gas station. Plaintiff complained to Nakamura over 20 times about his conduct. He also voiced his concerns to other deputies, who told him that Nakamura, a friend of Arcos, did not like plaintiff because of his complaints.
Plaintiff was next assigned to field training officer George Meza. Plaintiff had a generally good relationship with Meza. But, in July 2014, while Meza was on vacation, plaintiff was assigned to patrol with Deputy Lund. On one occasion, plaintiff left Lund at a restaurant, where Lund ate with other deputies, while plaintiff went next door to get food for himself. When Meza returned from vacation, he was angry that plaintiff had obtained something to eat while he was on his shift and because plaintiff had purportedly failed to complete reports. Meza told plaintiff that he wanted to "'punch [plaintiff] in the fucking face right now.'" Plaintiff and Meza separately reported the incident to the watch commander, who told plaintiff to write a memo documenting Meza's threat. Plaintiff was then transferred to work at Industry station's jail.
On August 26, 2014, plaintiff had a meeting with Captain Tim Murakami and Lieutenant John Gannon. Murakami told plaintiff that if he did not either quit or voluntarily leave patrol and return to custody duties, Murakami would open an internal affairs investigation against him. Plaintiff did neither.
On September 4, 2014, Murakami sent a letter to the captain of personnel management, asking whether plaintiff could be compelled to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine his fitness for duty. Murakami was concerned about plaintiff's "pattern of behavior indicating an integrity issue and/or underlying medical/mental health problem."
In October 2014, plaintiff went on medical leave due to his inability to sleep, migraines, and gastrointestinal issues. Dr. Ynolde Smith, plaintiff's treating physician, diagnosed plaintiff with high blood pressure, which was likely due to job stress, and referred plaintiff to a gastroenterologist. The gastroenterologist determined that plaintiff should undergo surgery, which took place in December 2014. Plaintiff returned to work at the jail for one or two days in December 2014 before he took another medical leave. Plaintiff did not return to work at the Sheriff's Department.
While on medical leave, plaintiff received a letter advising him of his duties while on leave. The letter informed plaintiff that he was on "schedule A," which required him to remain at his place of residence from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plaintiff was also required to obtain permission to leave his location for appointments. The letter advised plaintiff that the Sheriff's Department would make regular contact with him to "determine [his] welfare and anticipated recovery period and to ensure [the Sheriff's Department had his] current contact information." Finally, it directed plaintiff to complete and submit a personnel information form.
During plaintiff's medical leave, the Sheriff's Department opened three internal affairs investigations of him.
The first investigation was related to plaintiff's absence from work. Michael Mileski, the return-to-work sergeant, was responsible for overseeing trainee deputies that were out for injuries. On December 1, 2014, Dr. Smith prepared a note indicating that plaintiff was able to return to work on December 2, 2014. When Sergeant Mileski asked plaintiff whether he would be returning to work on December 2, 2014, plaintiff requested and received permission to take additional days off. With the additional days off, plaintiff was scheduled to return to work on December 8, 2014.
On December 8, 2014, Mileski called plaintiff and asked whether he would be returning to work that day. Plaintiff responded that he would not because he needed to prepare for a scheduled surgery. On December 9, 2014, Mileski wrote a supervisory inquiry alleging that plaintiff had disobeyed an order to return to work. Mileski and plaintiff disputed whether Mileski had ordered plaintiff to return to work. The inquiry resulted in a disciplinary action against plaintiff.
The second investigation involved plaintiff's outside employment at Disneyland. As we describe below, during the investigation, deputies sought to determine the nature of plaintiff's medical condition and his whereabouts.
Plaintiff had been employed full time at Disneyland from 2000 to 2007, when he began work at the Sheriff's Department. Beginning in 2007, plaintiff continued to work at Disneyland as a seasonal employee.
On June 9, 2015, Sergeant Greg Taylor, the return-to-work sergeant at Industry station, sent Dr. Smith a letter asking what positions were suitable for plaintiff once he returned to work. Taylor subsequently visited Dr. Smith's office and spoke to a nurse about plaintiff's restrictions. The office faxed a response letter in July 2015, describing the duties plaintiff could perform. Dr. Smith told plaintiff that she was extremely uncomfortable with the questions Taylor asked the members of her office. Plaintiff became too embarrassed to continue seeing Dr. Smith.
On July 14, 2015, Taylor tried to contact plaintiff in person at his residence and by phone to see if he could return to work in August 2015. When plaintiff did not respond, Taylor went to Disneyland and learned that plaintiff worked there. Following further investigation, Taylor concluded that plaintiff had failed to fill out a form indicating that he had outside employment.
On August 13, 2015, Lieutenant Gannon went to plaintiff's residence and rang the doorbell. Plaintiff did not respond and Gannon left his business card. Taylor then prepared a supervisory inquiry into plaintiff's unauthorized outside employment. Captain Murakami authorized an internal affairs investigation.
Sergeant Ronald Ridley was part of the Sheriff's Department's Internal Affairs Bureau and, on April 13, 2016, he was assigned to investigate plaintiff's outside employment at Disneyland. On June 7, 2016, Ridley and his partner Lieutenant John Adams went to Disneyland and met with the security supervisor. The supervisor confirmed that plaintiff had resumed his employment with Disneyland on February 22 2015. Ridley and Adams were able to...
To continue reading
Request your trial