LAPD DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PROTECTED CLASSES
Lessons Learned Not So Well In The LAPD, Audit Shows
Written by Mario Muñoz
In 2013, the Department’s Inspector General conducted the last employment litigation audit to review the LAPD’s responsibilities regarding employment litigation and to evaluate the Department’s compliance with applicable policies.
The audit examined 99 lawsuits filed by many members of the organization within various protected classes. On top of the list, discrimination, retaliation and gender bias were among the causes of action found to be at the center of these lawsuits. The six-year audit showed that the payout awards for years 2006/07-2011/12 totaled $31 million for employment practices and $42 million in litigation costs. We expect that a new 5-year audit would reveal a substantial increase in payout awards. Among the recommendations made by the inspector general were two key reforms worth mentioning that, to date, have never been implemented. One, that “Lessons Learned” be examined and discussed to prevent further victimization of employees and thereby reducing civil litigation. And two, that the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) and the Department work together to design preventative outlets to capture and mediate workplace issues, such as discrimination based on protected classes. Unfortunately, while the Department avoids implementing key recommendations, dedicated employees, continue to be the target of unchallenged discriminatory practices prohibited by the organization.
To repair past injustices from prior administrations, in 2003, Chief William Bratton created the Disciplinary Settlements Unit. The unit was formed within Professional Standards Bureau, under the umbrella of the Federal Consent Decree, specifically designed to mediate and fix the wrongs of a corrupt disciplinary system. Wrongs that were done during the Rodney King and Rampart investigations by overzealous command officers who were following political agendas. Sounds familiar?
This Disciplinary Settlements system was also designed as an employee mediation outlet and to prevent managers from weaponizing the disciplinary system as a political tool. As the project manager, I settled over 250 cases in the first 18 months of its inception. Once the Department met the mandates of the Federal Consent Decree in 2007, coupled with Bratton’s departure and leadership, it was very noticeable that the old discriminatory disciplinary practices once again began to emerge.
In 2017, we, in conjunction with other discrimination victims formed a nonprofit organization called Blue Ribbon Retaliation Intervention Center. This organization provides a voice to help officers unjustly accused of wrongdoing regain their dignity. Blue Ribbon discourages lawsuits while intervening and mediating in disciplinary matters that are too complex and often too conflicting for the LAPPL to challenge. To that end, since 2007, I have challenged the Department in disciplinary matters in more than 45 cases, 15 of those since I retired and under the umbrella of Blue Ribbon nonprofit organization. Based on case examinations, I have seen an alarming pattern where managers have clearly weaponized the disciplinary system to either over discipline, discriminate or retaliate against employees based on personal agendas or against those who do not fit the mold of the workplace or administration.
For example, during the last five years, 42 sworn employees were charged with providing false statements during official investigations. They were directed to Board of Right hearings with a recommendation by the chief to be terminated from employment with the LAPD. In 50% of the cases, the officers were found NOT guilty. It is like sending half of innocent people to death row to be executed when in fact they did nothing wrong.
A common myth among Department managers, with regards to discrimination claims, is that an employee must prove that the employer’s reason for imposing discipline on an employee, based on a protected class, was a pretext. When in fact, legal experts in this field have successfully litigated discrimination cases without showing the employer intended to discriminate. I have testified in some of these LAPD cases. The pretext can be shown by proving that the employer deviated from their own disciplinary policies and practices to respond to such an issue, as in many of the cases we have seen that led up to lawsuits and no one wants to talk about. Since 2001, I have trained Department personnel in preventing workplace issues. I focused my training in lessons learned from prior administrators who have engaged in disciplinary practices that either intentionally or unintentionally discriminated against Department personnel under protected classes. Since the Department stopped the disciplinary training in 2007, litigation cost/awards increased over 300 percent, a number shown on the 2013 Inspector General Employment Litigation Report. It is clear that lessons learned, and mediation training recommended by the inspector general are far from becoming a reality when such preventive measures should be a Department priority.
We are hoping that Chief Moore’s new administration will not repeat the same mistakes as his predecessors given the new “I hate cops” political climate. I am hoping that audit mechanisms and training are reinstated and transparent to prevent incidents of weaponization from occurring under the pretext of discipline. Clearly in many cases, additional levels of review designed to protect the employee have failed miserably. In particular at Internal Affairs Group, like Review and Evaluation Section and finally, the Internal Affairs representative who makes the presentation and final recommendation to the chief for termination. As of today, victims of discrimination have nowhere to go, and employees are left with no option but to sue as the vicious circle continues. In the end, everyone loses when dedicated employees are ousted by the same system that is meant to protect them from becoming victims of a “because I can” mentality while Department managers brag about discrimination and unbiased policies, they have no intention of policing and upholding.