A recent court decision has upheld the dismissal of two former police officers who accused their employer of retaliation. On September 6, 2024, Alberto Vargas and Pablo Orduno filed a complaint against the City of Long Beach in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for whistleblowing and other protected activities.
The plaintiffs, Vargas and Orduno, both former officers with long tenures at the City of Long Beach Police Department, claimed that their terminations were acts of retaliation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Labor Code section 1102.5. They argued that their dismissals followed multiple lawsuits they had filed against the city over several years, including allegations of discrimination and retaliation. The City initiated an internal affairs investigation against them shortly after a court ruling in one of these consolidated cases went against them.
According to the complaint, Vargas began his employment with the City in 1994, while Orduno started in 1999. Both officers had previously sued the City for FEHA violations—Vargas in 1997, 2004, and 2006—and together again in August 2014 and April 2015 for FEHA and Labor Code violations. Their consolidated case was resolved against them on summary judgment. In March 2017, Vargas filed another action for retaliation under FEHA.
The City's internal affairs investigation began on April 18, 2016—four days after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City in their consolidated action. The investigation centered on allegations that both officers made untruthful statements during discovery responses submitted as part of their claims. Specifically, Vargas was accused of lying about being selected for acting sergeant roles and filing a race discrimination lawsuit that ended in his favor; Orduno was accused of lying about complaints he made regarding treatment by superiors and difficulties complying with traffic citation requirements.
On May 23, 2017, both officers were dismissed from their positions following sustained findings from the internal affairs investigation. They subsequently filed a new complaint on September 18, 2017, asserting causes of action for retaliation under FEHA and whistleblower protections provided by section 1102.5.
In response to the lawsuit, the City moved for summary judgment on August 31, 2021. The motion argued that there was no merit to plaintiffs' claims because they could not show they engaged in protected activities under FEHA or had an objectively reasonable belief that they were reporting violations under section 1102.5. The City also contended there was no causal link between plaintiffs' activities and their terminations; rather, it had independent reasons for terminating them based on findings of untruthfulness.
Ultimately, Judge Holly J. Fujie affirmed the City's motion for summary judgment on March 24, 2022. The court concluded there were no triable issues of fact regarding either claim brought by Vargas and Orduno. It found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that retaliation was a contributing factor to their terminations or establish a prima facie case under FEHA.
Representing the plaintiffs were Gregory W. Smith from Law Office of Gregory W. Smith along with Diana Wang Wells from Benedon & Serlin; Douglas G. Benedon and Judith E. Posner also appeared for plaintiffs-appellants. Samantha Lamm from Rutan & Tucker represented the defendant-respondent City of Long Beach.