Flood of lawsuits by LAPD officers costs the city millions
At least 17 officers have won million-dollar-plus jury verdicts or settlements from the city in the last decade in lawsuits involving accusations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices.
 City Council member Greig Smith said, "These cases irk the heck out of me." (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times) |
Robert Hill did not join the Los Angeles Police Department to become a millionaire. And yet, that's what happened in September when city officials cut the veteran cop and his lawyer a check for nearly $4 million.
The money was compensation for the snide comments and other abuse Hill suffered at the hands of other LAPD officers after he reported that a supervisor used racial slurs and embezzled department funds.
In the last decade, at least 16 other officers have won million-dollar-plus jury verdicts or settlements from the city in lawsuits in which they leveled accusations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices. Dozens more officers have won five- or six-figure paydays.
"These cases irk the heck out of me," said City Councilman Greig Smith, who has been a critic of the city's job-protection rules that, he said, make it too difficult to fire officers who cause workplace problems. "Somebody running a private company would never let this … stand. Why do we let it happen here? And we see the same things happening over and over again."
City records show that from 2005 to 2010, officers have sued the department over workplace issues more than 250 times. The city has paid settlements or verdicts totaling more than $18 million in about 45 of those cases and has lost several other verdicts worth several million dollars more in cases it is appealing, a review of the records shows. The city has prevailed in about 50 cases. The rest, representing tens of millions of dollars in potential liability, remain open.
Litigious officers have bedeviled Los Angeles police chiefs and city lawyers for decades, and a survey of large police departments across the country indicates that LAPD officers file suit more than others.
Los Angeles police, for example, brought an average of about three times more lawsuits a year per officer than officers in Chicago and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. And there were about a third fewer lawsuits among Boston police.
Officer-driven lawsuits have come under greater scrutiny in recent years as Los Angeles' financial problems have gotten worse. Elected officials and the LAPD's independent watchdog believe the department should be doing more to deter workplace conflict and avoid the expensive litigation.
Beyond the financial toll, the cases often amount to embarrassing, public airings of the department's dirty laundry — nasty fights that expose crude behavior by officers and a retaliatory mindset of supervisors that undermine efforts by senior officials to present the LAPD as a smoothly run operation.
The case of Patricia Fuller, who at the time was the only woman serving as a dog handler in the LAPD's canine unit, underscores how contentious and costly workplace incidents can become for the city.
Fuller had accused men in the unit of making vulgar sexual advances and comments, while also excluding her from training exercises, court records show. In 2009, city officials paid Fuller $2.25 million to settle her claims.
Then another canine officer, Donald Bender, filed a lawsuit alleging that he had been stripped of a rank and kicked out of the unit as retaliation for coming to Fuller's defense.
He was followed by Blaine Blackstone, a sergeant who supervised Fuller. Blackstone said he had been the target of retaliation by superiors after he refused their demands that he placate Fuller by changing her performance evaluation.
The city refused to settle with Bender and Blackstone, and both officers won their cases. Bender received $2.5 million and Blackstone was awarded nearly $750,000 in damages, court records show.
For Hill, who said the retaliation against him included being followed by other officers, falsely accused of misconduct and removed from a coveted assignment, knowing the large verdict he won came from taxpayers left him with mixed feelings.
"Here I was a public servant suing the city, basically suing the taxpayers who I was committed to protecting," Hill said. "What I really wanted was for the names of the people who had harmed me to be on that lawsuit. I wanted the money to come out of their pockets. I felt bad that the wrong people were paying, but it was the only recourse I had as an officer."
Large verdicts can be a financial boon for rank-and-file police officers who earn $45,000 to about $85,000, depending on the number of years they have served. Some, like Hill, choose to remain on the job, while others leave. Beyond the money, some who have been fired have successfully sued to get their jobs back.
The question of whether to settle a case or take the officer to court can be a dicey one for city and police officials. Settle too easily, the thinking goes, and the department will be seen by officers and attorneys as an easy target. Taking too hard a stand, however, carries risks as well. Employment cases are difficult to defend against, lawyers say, since they often turn on emotional issues and differing perceptions of what occurred.
"If you settle, all you're doing is encouraging other officers to file more lawsuits," said LAPD Cmdr. Stuart Maislin, who for several years ran the department's Risk Management Division. "It sends the message that the city is just giving away money — that an officer just has to make a claim and they'll walk away with some money in their pocket. The only way to stop that is to take them to court and fight them."
"When we lose," Maislin added, "we lose big."
In general, City Atty. Carman Trutanich and Gerald Chaleff, a senior advisor to LAPD Chief Charlie Beck who oversees employee lawsuits, have pursued a hard-line approach with officers in recent years, refusing to settle except in those cases where it is clear the city is likely to lose in court.
That tough stance has led to mixed results. The city has lost a handful of jury verdicts that could have been avoided if it had been willing to settle.
Attorney Matthew McNicholas, for example, represented Richard Romney, an officer who was fired after he testified about the department's overtime policy in a labor dispute; Melissa Borck, who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit; and Bender, the canine officer. McNicholas offered to settle the three cases for a total of $2 million, but police officials and city lawyers were adamant about taking all three to court and ended up losing verdicts totaling about $9.5 million.
Understaffing and a lack of lawyers with experience in workplace issues in the city attorney's office has hampered the city's ability to defend itself against such lawsuits in court, officials said. Bill Carter, Trutanich's chief deputy, said overworked attorneys have missed court-filing deadlines, failed to take important depositions and made other blunders on employment cases.
"We're creating a recipe for disaster," Carter said.
The recent high-dollar verdicts and settlements suggest that the department needs to do more to mediate workplace conflicts, said Nicole Bershon, inspector general for the Los Angeles Police Commission. That should include bringing in impartial employment experts to help resolve conflicts before they reach a courtroom, she said.
The department also has come under fire for failing to thoroughly investigate complaints of workplace problems. In a 2010 audit of LAPD investigations into employee allegations of retaliation, Bershon's office found that investigators routinely neglected to interview people accused of misconduct, or even name them in the investigations.
The way the department handles officer lawsuits has become a source of increasingly hostile fodder for the Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file officers and sometimes assists officers in bringing their suits.
Emboldened by recent high-profile verdicts for officers, union officials have grown vocal at what they see as the unwillingness or inability of senior LAPD officials to deal with problems in the workplace — a charge department leaders deny.
"I've got a news flash for … the 'leaders' who are tasked with ensuring the Department treats its people fairly. Look in the mirror to find out where the problems are," Sgt. John Mumma, the union's secretary, wrote in a recent open letter published in the union's magazine. "How many more officers are going to become millionaires over the botched handling of their cases?"
joel.rubin@latimes.com
***********************************************************************************
Reason4Logic at 8:33 AM May 8, 2011 Police work can be very difficult. It can result in psychological stress to the point that it warps a man "or woman's" sense of self, fairness, kindness, etc. There can be no doubt about that. When the union rules are so stringent that officers who are no longer suitable to remain in police work stay on the job - the consequences can be disastrous not only to the police department but to the public.
Police agencies need to be very careful about who they hire to begin with. One personality profile that is attracted to law enforcement is an aggressive young male who looks forward to the opportunity to legally drive a car at high rates of speed, carry a firearm, get in fights, and engage in other macho behavior. This class of individual can also be expected to have a flip side - perhaps a less than favorable view of women might be one of them.
With modern control mechanisms such as pepper spray and the taser, there is no longer a need to hire young, tough, adventure seeking males to fill the ranks of the police department. The department is better served by selecting the smartest, thinking men and women available.
The LAPD is a great institution. These lawsuits should not color the entire agency. They have the toughest of all environments to police and by and large, they do so with total professionalism and sacrifice.
Police agencies need to be very careful about who they hire to begin with. One personality profile that is attracted to law enforcement is an aggressive young male who looks forward to the opportunity to legally drive a car at high rates of speed, carry a firearm, get in fights, and engage in other macho behavior. This class of individual can also be expected to have a flip side - perhaps a less than favorable view of women might be one of them.
With modern control mechanisms such as pepper spray and the taser, there is no longer a need to hire young, tough, adventure seeking males to fill the ranks of the police department. The department is better served by selecting the smartest, thinking men and women available.
The LAPD is a great institution. These lawsuits should not color the entire agency. They have the toughest of all environments to police and by and large, they do so with total professionalism and sacrifice.
09silver at 8:30 AM May 8, 2011 The L.A. Times propagandist, er, ..."Journalist" wrote,
"Litigious officers have bedeviled Los Angeles police chiefs and city lawyers for decades, and a survey of large police departments across the country indicates that LAPD officers file suit more than others."
Why do real investigative journalism work, when you can just call the dozens of
whistleblowers, "Litigious"? Why are all these officers suing? Let's not investigate,
let's just call the whistleblowers names. Every single one of these cases were
successful, yet the "Journalist" Joel Rubin, is content to call whistleblowers names.
Punish the whistleblowers, and ignore the crimes. Joel Rubin, keep this up
and you may have a real future in politics.
"Litigious officers have bedeviled Los Angeles police chiefs and city lawyers for decades, and a survey of large police departments across the country indicates that LAPD officers file suit more than others."
Why do real investigative journalism work, when you can just call the dozens of
whistleblowers, "Litigious"? Why are all these officers suing? Let's not investigate,
let's just call the whistleblowers names. Every single one of these cases were
successful, yet the "Journalist" Joel Rubin, is content to call whistleblowers names.
Punish the whistleblowers, and ignore the crimes. Joel Rubin, keep this up
and you may have a real future in politics.
Big Mike 42 at 8:30 AM May 8, 2011 So, just what is the problem? Could it be the type of person being hired to be an LAPD officer? I think it is a large portion of the puzzle. It takes a special breed to be a cop, a wuss or cry baby should never be hired, but they are. Pond sucking attorney's and disloyal employees are a volatile mixture. The strong LAPD of today has been compromised by politically correct hiring and the "wussification" of its ranks and management.
bboomer1948 at 8:36 AM May 8, 2011 'Bring back a Chief Gates'........And, 'Old School' !!!
Governmentwatchdog at 8:28 AM May 8, 2011 LAPD had a culture among top managers for retaliating. They don't care because they don't have to personallly pay out these damages. They continuously carry out their retaliation and subject the tax payers to millions of dollars in liability. This will never stops until the LAPD chanes this mindset. In the mean time, Law savy LAPD officer will continue to fight in the only arean that will protect them - court. LAPD brass should be ashamed of themselves. What an embarassment.
mr. gittes at 8:14 AM May 8, 2011 HEY!
I been prejudiced against!
i haven't won ANY jury awards yet!!
I been prejudiced against!
i haven't won ANY jury awards yet!!
gracous at 8:13 AM May 8, 2011 The application process to become a police officer involves a massive background check and thorough training. Why are they allowing bigoted bullies into the department who act like this? The biggest problem is the problem officer and their shameful behavior as a public servant. The fact that they cannot fire these officers is something that should be addressed and cleaned up ASAP. I have worked with bullies in the past in the private sector, and it makes for a very unpleasant work environment. But, when I spoke up, I did not get awarded a million dollars. I was retaliated against and kicked out.
just_sayin' at 8:07 AM May 8, 2011 There's no doubt the LAPD is a hostile work place for many; especially minorities. To all the reasonable posters who frequent these forums and comment sections - imagine the idiots who post unbelieveable, racist, sexist, hate-filled comments here. Those fools are light-weights compared to MANY LAPD officers. You either take their abuse, fight back at your own risk, quit or sue. I know from personal experience.
contraryjim at 8:03 AM May 8, 2011 What agent is responsible for this us v.s. them environment in "law enforcement"? Could it be the unions that provide escape from accountability? Does politician courting of union votes contribute? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - IS the law enforcement industry more powerful than those who pay their wages?
Who will/can police the police?
Who will/can police the police?
Kenny.Brooks at 7:55 AM May 8, 2011 As I read this article and saw each of the officers names I know personally and have worked with, that have prevailed in civil actions against the City of Los Angeles and its Police Department, I know none of them ever had the desire to suit. When the vicious and pernicious cycle begins to "Pay Back" an officer for doing the right thing or for telling the truth about a situation that exposes the LAPD and the City to liability is the root cause of all law suits. The City Attorneys office is simply shoveling water against a tide that is beginning to overwhelm them.
Generally whenever there is a dispute within the Department involving an employee, the Department takes a retaliatory hard line approach that results in litigation. The answer to this situation in my opinion would be to directly address employee disputes in a mediation type of setting within the Police Department. I would strongly suggest that everyone involved in a dispute resulting in litigation ALL BE HELD EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE for any negative outcome. The mindset of "F-Them Let'em Suit" is the mentality that has lead to this situation and must end.
Generally whenever there is a dispute within the Department involving an employee, the Department takes a retaliatory hard line approach that results in litigation. The answer to this situation in my opinion would be to directly address employee disputes in a mediation type of setting within the Police Department. I would strongly suggest that everyone involved in a dispute resulting in litigation ALL BE HELD EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE for any negative outcome. The mindset of "F-Them Let'em Suit" is the mentality that has lead to this situation and must end.
omigoshian at 7:45 AM May 8, 2011 People are afraid of the police. Most were bullies in school and were able to put that philosophy of life to work as police. On top of that, they are unionized, which means they can't be disciplined. Basically, they are an elite group that is out of control. Frustrated administrative officials are unable to direct them and so it has become a mess. Both supervisors and police should be transitioned out and we should create a new force with integrity as their primary work ethic.
mr. gittes at 8:25 AM May 8, 2011 in mexico, corruption is usually the reason for a PD shakeup...
in L.A. its "feelings"
in L.A. its "feelings"
DoreenMeyer at 8:29 AM May 8, 2011 @omigoshian: Your own generalization ('most were bullies in school') is a gross example of stereotypcing of the worst kind. I know a lot of officers--there are 'the good, the bad, and the ugly' in any walk of life. Police work is just one example. The men and women I know in diffrent branches of law enforcement were NOT the bullies, but the people who stood up to the bullies for themselves and others. Do you know a number of law enforcement personnel on which you substantiate your highly prejudiced representation? Even if you do--perhaps you have been running with the wrong crowd.
publicservant54 at 7:43 AM May 8, 2011 AZNurse.......Good for you.... I too have thought, very recently, of quitting this disfunctional department. I still am contemplating it very seriously.
publicservant54 at 7:42 AM May 8, 2011 I too have been a victim of a hostile work place! But instead of a money grab against the citizens of LA, I just suck it up, speak my mind and drive on. But I understand why some of these officers sue....The city allows the weak and pathetic leadership of the LAPD to continue operating as status quo. Even with all the feel good BS computer training that they mandate us all to complete, they still allow "leaders" to create and sustain hostile work conditions. Then when some of us fight back by way of standing up to the bullies who also happen to be wering blue, the "leaders" use the system that they have been ignoring when it suits them, to impose disapline. I know of multiple divisions, if not all, that have this going on right now. They bosses allow the slander of hard working officers. Maybe after the city looses millions more, they will get it right and stop the BS. But I doubt it. The LAPD is run by a bunch of megalomaniacs.
mr. gittes at 8:28 AM May 8, 2011 "I been victimized!!"
You KNOW that sounds funny coming from a man who wears a gun, tazer, mace, handcuffs...
You KNOW that sounds funny coming from a man who wears a gun, tazer, mace, handcuffs...
AZNurse at 7:30 AM May 8, 2011 In 1991 I was a police officer for LAPD, and frankly they should fire much of the force. It was a nightmare while I was working there. As a woman, even though finishing near the top of my academy class, I was belittled, harassed, overheard constant racial comments against citizens, and witnessed many illegal acts by fellow officers. They are an ignorant, uneducated, nasty bunch, with just a few exceptions. I certainly could have sued, but quit instead. I do not blame those who do sue. LAPD is one of the absolute worst police departments in the nation, and what is funny is that they think they are the best. That is probably part of the problem.
sdnative1 at 7:07 AM May 8, 2011 Sounds like what LA really has is a jury problem.
Robert Garcia1 at 6:56 AM May 8, 2011 Just a thougt but wouldn't it make sense to FIRE attorney's in Trutanich office who "overworked attorneys have missed court-filing deadlines, failed to take important depositions and made other blunders on employment cases" I find it odd when the media report these stories they never name the supervisors or command staff being sued. They always seem to out the officers. Trutanich and Gerald Chaleff could have settled 5 lawsuits for $2 million but instead let them go to trial and lost $9 million. It seems the PEOPLE are siding with the police officers being sued. Juries are believing Police Officers are being unfairly targeted and harrass at work. DUhhh....Why isn't Chaleff or Beck doing something about it? Officers like many in private and public sector are standing up for their rights in the work environment. Moving forward I bet if the LAPD named those supervisors instead of protecting them these lawsuits will decrease. Instead LAPD protects them.
contraryjim at 8:10 AM May 8, 2011 The malifactors shouldn't get off easy by settling out of court. If the city (LAPD) is guilty it should all come out in court - NO meditation behind closed doors. Point the blame - at laws and supervisiors that create a hostile work environment.
SherryKoch at 6:50 AM May 8, 2011 Who are we kidding indeed. Government jobs are designed to suck money from the people. The LAPD officers just found a better paid way to suck money.
Reduce the size of goverment. Reduce the size of LAPD. The petty crimes these LAPD officers are after are nothing compared to the millions they are pulling in lawsuits.
Reduce the size of goverment. Reduce the size of LAPD. The petty crimes these LAPD officers are after are nothing compared to the millions they are pulling in lawsuits.
donfitness at 8:01 AM May 8, 2011 There are many of these lawsuits that are planned. Even the people being accused of wrong doing are sometimes involved. It's EASY money.
contraryjim at 8:11 AM May 8, 2011 ".. Reduce the size of goverment..." One doesn't remove just part of the cancer.
DoreenMeyer at 8:34 AM May 8, 2011 @SherryKoch:Those paid to write hostile blogs about 'the government' will use any article as an excuse. Sounds like gratuitous government-bashing to me. Shall we all move directly to 'Mad Max'?
william.gates.1066 at 6:38 AM May 8, 2011 the easy fix is to add a clause to the employment contracts saying work related b.s. has to be handled by arbitration, also fix a cap on damages. in other words the lawmakers do have the upper hand, they can fix this easily, all they have to do is deal with the fallback from the police unions smearing them in ad campaigns. also the lawyers will fight back.
all of this resistance against the public sector power to enjoy unreasonable perks involving money is going to get even worse when the current crop of them retires and the states try to pay their $1T unfunded pensions. it's more than that even, depending on how you do the calculations -- the public sector actually has a special dispensation in accounting where they don't have to balance the books on the pension funds.
with the public sector, where the idea is at least part of the reason the employee wants to work is to help the public (be a servant at least partly) what would work is harsh walmart style management, which will never happen because the politicians use the public sector as a kickback scheme.
all of this resistance against the public sector power to enjoy unreasonable perks involving money is going to get even worse when the current crop of them retires and the states try to pay their $1T unfunded pensions. it's more than that even, depending on how you do the calculations -- the public sector actually has a special dispensation in accounting where they don't have to balance the books on the pension funds.
with the public sector, where the idea is at least part of the reason the employee wants to work is to help the public (be a servant at least partly) what would work is harsh walmart style management, which will never happen because the politicians use the public sector as a kickback scheme.
Not in Chicago at 6:34 AM May 8, 2011 Politicians arte upset because they don't get a cut.
Who negotiates these "contracts" with the police? It's a sweetheart deal all the way around. Who promotes these guys?
Who, may I ask, is kidding whom?
Who negotiates these "contracts" with the police? It's a sweetheart deal all the way around. Who promotes these guys?
Who, may I ask, is kidding whom?
sleepd at 6:07 AM May 8, 2011 The settlements sound large, but after doing a little math aren't that big.
2.5 million, attorney takes 50% (sometimes more) which leaves 1.25 million for plaintiff.
Taxes on plaintiff amount = 38% = leaves $850,000
For a senior officer that represents 10 years salary. What most of these officers are saying is that their careers were sidelined and destroyed by unfair practices of harrassment, revenge and racial discrimination. Most of them lose their careers, so compensation for 10 years of lost salary (as opposed to a lifetime) isn't that unreasonable or even large. Especially if you've got a criminal justice degree, went through the academy and spent military time to get there.
The preference isn't to reduce the judgements (which are deserved) but instead to recreate the workplace so that it is fair. Given the old boy network that exists in the LAPD, it really requires greater public transparency, with an elected civilian oversight department (not political appointees!) that has authority over hiring and firing and isn't just a rubber stamp bureau.
2.5 million, attorney takes 50% (sometimes more) which leaves 1.25 million for plaintiff.
Taxes on plaintiff amount = 38% = leaves $850,000
For a senior officer that represents 10 years salary. What most of these officers are saying is that their careers were sidelined and destroyed by unfair practices of harrassment, revenge and racial discrimination. Most of them lose their careers, so compensation for 10 years of lost salary (as opposed to a lifetime) isn't that unreasonable or even large. Especially if you've got a criminal justice degree, went through the academy and spent military time to get there.
The preference isn't to reduce the judgements (which are deserved) but instead to recreate the workplace so that it is fair. Given the old boy network that exists in the LAPD, it really requires greater public transparency, with an elected civilian oversight department (not political appointees!) that has authority over hiring and firing and isn't just a rubber stamp bureau.
JosephLCooke at 6:05 AM May 8, 2011 These lawsuits weren't a problem in the 50's and 60's. Fewer libs then.
DoreenMeyer at 6:02 AM May 8, 2011 The article suggests that it's 'litigious officers' and cites statistics comparing LA to other large cities as evidence that LA cops are, indeed, litigious. After reading this piece, I wonder why the author didn't call for full-scale reform of the LAPD, with mass firings of offenders (I know what you'll say: union protection). It sounds as if LA has a particularly unruly (racist? sexist? tight blue wall?) department. Going up against any PD is terrifying. Citizens can be threatened with arrest or harassment (including frequent 'pullovers' and being held at gunpoint) and evidence (against police) has a way of 'disappearing'. I can't imagine what it's like to be on the inside, surrounded by (mostly) hostile others, not knowing who CAN be trusted. Sounds as if LA will continue to bleed money until it gets LAPD 'reformed.'
mr. gittes at 8:18 AM May 8, 2011 tight blue wall?
sounds more like an uptight blue wall...
litigation is like the Lottery for public servants...
you can't win if you don't play.
sounds more like an uptight blue wall...
litigation is like the Lottery for public servants...
you can't win if you don't play.
mr. gittes at 8:32 AM May 8, 2011 ...which is not to let the LAPD off the hook
Half the officers these days look like gang-bangers
Half the officers these days look like gang-bangers
Olden Atwoody at 4:22 AM May 8, 2011 I may have something here. I believe your American Army takes problem recruits and assigns them to "recycle" units for re-training.
Perhaps all the questionable offices should be assigned together, at a substation nearest a warm desert clime, or in an industrial area - Bandini Mountain? Let them turn on themselves.
Perhaps all the questionable offices should be assigned together, at a substation nearest a warm desert clime, or in an industrial area - Bandini Mountain? Let them turn on themselves.
Olden Atwoody at 4:10 AM May 8, 2011 Why do I never read of the firings and City-filed civil suits against the people that harass, and whom are ultimately responsible for these lawsuits?
DoreenMeyer at 6:10 AM May 8, 2011 Because cities are supposed to manage their forces (all departments) in line with local/state/federal regulation...if there is evidence that the city workforce itself is glossing over or ignoring (put 'nicely') blatant offenses then the city is liable. How could someone bring multiple suits against multiple coworkers without paying a fortune in legal fees and spending all their time in court? A single suit against all might not be possible.
A secondary reason: deep pockets. 'Winning' against any single coworker might not even pay the plaintiff's legal fees--and these plaintiffs may never be able to go back to the force, so they need money.
A secondary reason: deep pockets. 'Winning' against any single coworker might not even pay the plaintiff's legal fees--and these plaintiffs may never be able to go back to the force, so they need money.
mr. gittes at 8:21 AM May 8, 2011 taxsuckers are your "deep pockets"...
payouts are cool...when it's Other People's Money
payouts are cool...when it's Other People's Money
DoreenMeyer at 8:39 AM May 8, 2011 @mr.gittes: These suits happen in the private sector all the time, and they usually are settled out of court for large amounts, so we don't hear about it. It's not easy to prove real harassment/hostile workplace. You seem to think suits are filed 'just because' they'll be paid out of public funds. You could stand up for LAPD reform, be heard, get involved and attempt change...or sit back and insult others.
zombiebank at 12:52 AM May 8, 2011 ..."How many more officers are going to become millionaires over the botched handling of their cases?"...
Who cares, No biggie, the taxpayers are there to foot the bill for the inept public administrators and opportunistic employes who relish litigation for personal gain.
Who cares......
Who cares, No biggie, the taxpayers are there to foot the bill for the inept public administrators and opportunistic employes who relish litigation for personal gain.
Who cares......
DoreenMeyer at 8:43 AM May 8, 2011 @zombiebank: I don't know about 'opportunistic employees who relish litigation... .' I'm sure there are some. I have, however, encountered a lot of 'inept public administrators', many of whom are so absorbed with climbing the political/promotional ladder that they take no action whatsoever on problems in their divisions...in fact, they ignore their divisions/departments in favor of externals. So--yes! Too many public administrators are inept, inattentive, or ineffective in doing the job they were hired for...not just PD.
Insurrextion at 12:23 AM May 8, 2011 Internal Affairs claims police officer walked into his office and "voluntarily" lied to him without being questioned. The sidebar conversation is NOT RECORDED. The magic "untruthfulness" charge.
City of Oceanside pays off arbitrator. Problem solved.
City of Oceanside pays off arbitrator. Problem solved.
Insurrextion at 12:18 AM May 8, 2011 A female officer infers that her partner tells her to lie for him during an IA investigation -- the same officer who herself gets caught lying in an arbitration...
City of Oceanside pays off arbitrator. Problem solved.
City of Oceanside pays off arbitrator. Problem solved.
Insurrextion at 12:13 AM May 8, 2011 Sergeant drives drunk off duty. Patrol cop arrives on scene. Patrol officer ordered to record witness interviews. Command staff decides to wash the crime. Chief orders patrol cop to destroy evidence. Honest cop refuses to destroy audiotapes.
Commmand staff creates a "he said - she said" sexual harassment case against officer and railroads cop. City pays off arbitrator. Problem solved.
Blood tech sues cop. Superior court throws out lawsuit agaisnt officer due to lack of evidence. Doesn't make sense does it?
This is the type of retaliatin cops face when they try to do the honest thing. When a cop becomes a threat against the command staff, they get railroaded. Happens all the time.
Commmand staff creates a "he said - she said" sexual harassment case against officer and railroads cop. City pays off arbitrator. Problem solved.
Blood tech sues cop. Superior court throws out lawsuit agaisnt officer due to lack of evidence. Doesn't make sense does it?
This is the type of retaliatin cops face when they try to do the honest thing. When a cop becomes a threat against the command staff, they get railroaded. Happens all the time.
robiethecat.9021x at 12:50 AM May 8, 2011 Thanks for that.
Tow the line.
We have to do it in business.
Tow the line.
We have to do it in business.
DoreenMeyer at 6:17 AM May 8, 2011 @robiethecat.9021x: Difference is that in business you do not carry guns nor have the ability to threaten in other ways. I've been harassed in business situations--it's bad enough, and terribly stressful. But knowing that the people I'm working with may not 'have my back' -- or, worse, may 'get my back' -- in a danger situation is terrifying.
You have to work with PD regularly to know just how entitled they can be, and how far over the line they're willing to go (even on your 'turf') to understand. 'Tow the line' is great, but doesn't fly in this arena.
You have to work with PD regularly to know just how entitled they can be, and how far over the line they're willing to go (even on your 'turf') to understand. 'Tow the line' is great, but doesn't fly in this arena.
agarron at 10:25 PM May 7, 2011 Change the law. Ratchet it up to hate crime status. IF this is all true and proper- LAPD don't invest money to train officers to bring on lawsuits. Charge the officer with criminal conduct. That'll remove a lot of 'incentive' to make trouble on both sides.
werterrific at 9:13 PM May 7, 2011 I would be interested how BACA does with LASD law suits? Perhaps the Times could look into this similar issue
Kenny.Brooks at 8:10 AM May 8, 2011 LASD's disciplinary system is structured differently then LAPD's for starters and LASD has a strong and competent legal defense team that ensures the LASD managers know employee law and how to avaoid costly litigation. LASD learns from its mistakes!!! But LASD also has some serious corruption problems that are just beginning to surface within their custody facilities with gang member like deputies.
Last Honest Man at 8:45 PM May 7, 2011 "The money was compensation for the snide comments and other abuse Hill suffered at the hands of other LAPD officers after he reported that a supervisor used racial slurs and embezzled department funds."
That's worth about 40 bucks, not $4 million.
That's worth about 40 bucks, not $4 million.
DoreenMeyer at 6:19 AM May 8, 2011 I don't think you can judge the value until you're surrounded by a group of armed coworkers telling you you're in danger. The article covers only a small portion of what this person experienced; please don't rush to judgment.
Kenny.Brooks at 8:11 AM May 8, 2011 Only if you would have been selected for the jury and you werent! LOL
mr. gittes at 8:22 AM May 8, 2011 but YOU'RE ARMED!!
CheckTheMath at 8:36 PM May 7, 2011 Here’s a thought: Instead of hiring more lawyers, or worrying about courtroom tactics, stop hiring bigots and sexists, and fire the ones you have. If you stopped harassing and discriminating against the officers, you won’t have to defend yourself in court. It’s time to clean up the middle ranks of the LAPD – racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. have no place in civilized society, and certainly not in a police department.
byetheway77 at 8:00 PM May 7, 2011 Applicants for the position of Los Angeles Police Officer should score only 70 percent on a written exam in order to pass. The officers who told the examiners at the personal interview said they spoke with young men who potentially could have been snared by gangs and forced to become gang initiates; hence. Los Angeles Police Department gave them credit for community service which is another requirement for those seeking the police officer position. Some of the officers live in gang infested neighborhoods. Recent events like shootings by police officers who returned shots by gang members suggest that their is a rivalry between two classes of homies:police officers and gangsters. The Sheriff deputies on the third level of the Men's Central Jail formed a clique, or gang, while they held inmates captive.
Olden Atwoody at 4:13 AM May 8, 2011 "Applicants for the position of Los Angeles Police Officer should score only 70 percent on a written exam in order to pass."
I only understand 50% of that statistic.
I only understand 50% of that statistic.
vainamoinen48 at 7:49 PM May 7, 2011 shameful at every level
John the D at 7:32 PM May 7, 2011 ya know I've thought the same as Jimmy J if an officer uses a slur or harasses another officer, the offending officer is the one that should pay not the city, it should also bring down the amount of the award. When I was a youngster in the Army I was called a bunch of names, never occurred to me to sue.
byetheway77 at 8:03 PM May 7, 2011 Malpractice suits were replaced by arbitration in the 1980s. Some of the past lawsuits were frivolous.
william.gates.1066 at 7:29 PM May 7, 2011 what the cops should do, to maximize how much money the extract from the rest of the population is divide themselves into 2 groups. have one half pretend to harass the other half. (insert made up jobplace complaint here). then have one half, separately sue "the city". the city will settle for a few millions per cop. let's say it's a $3M settlement. then you are left w/ 1/2 the cops fired for doing whatever made up things the other half of the cop population bitc*d about, 1/2 the cops w/ their payout, and the lawyers. divide the money equally. the lawyer in each case gets $1M, in each case the suing cop gets his 1M, and the cop on the other end of the lawsuit, gets $1M (plus he's forced to retire. the winning cops don't retire, why not? it's an easy job and it has a massive early retirement pension that's equivalent to winning the lottery.
repeat the process w/ the remaining cops, dividing the cop population in half each time, but replacing i guess the fired cops w/ new recruits. and have the politicians who actually let cops do this get their share.
repeat the process w/ the remaining cops, dividing the cop population in half each time, but replacing i guess the fired cops w/ new recruits. and have the politicians who actually let cops do this get their share.
william.gates.1066 at 7:33 PM May 7, 2011 this works just as well w/ the fireman population. you have one half of the firemen either f*k the other half, or feed the other half dogfood -- this actually happens, because most of the time they have nothing better to do i guess -- then one half sues based on the behavior of the other half, and everyone wins.
this might be more efficient if the public safety worker unions line up the lawyers in advance and maybe even pay for the lawyers, but all of that money is just coming out of the same pool of collected money from high salaries so that doesn't really matter. except of course it's the union framework that makes sure the politicians protect these people. it's all a big kickback from the people who actually pay net taxes. the private sector.
this might be more efficient if the public safety worker unions line up the lawyers in advance and maybe even pay for the lawyers, but all of that money is just coming out of the same pool of collected money from high salaries so that doesn't really matter. except of course it's the union framework that makes sure the politicians protect these people. it's all a big kickback from the people who actually pay net taxes. the private sector.
the devel at 7:07 PM May 7, 2011 WE WILL HAVE CONTRACTER COPS BEFORE YOU KNOW IT THIS WILL WORK OUT WAY BEETTER
Olden Atwoody at 4:15 AM May 8, 2011 If issued a .45 Colt (pre-war) and a fully auto Steyr AUG, I will patrol up to two blocks around my manse for 4 hours an evening, for the sum of $200,000 annually. I will not need benefits or retirement, thank you.
sdnative1 at 7:15 AM May 8, 2011 "CONTRACTER COPS" [sic]?
Sounds like...Mexico.
Sounds like...Mexico.
Blackman at 7:00 PM May 7, 2011 Like we all needed another reason to hate the LAPD. Nothing but a trigger happy, deputized gang of thugs.
JimmyJam at 6:41 PM May 7, 2011 Stop billing the taxpayers for idiot police officer's misconducts. If a cop sues another cop for harrassment or retaliation, then let that cop pay it out of their pension.
frankie4 at 7:50 PM May 7, 2011 think about it,cop harrass each other one calls foul sues the tax payers,tax payers pay millions,nothing happens to the cop that made the problem,a huge pay check,huge pensions.the funny thing you have no right to sue any body.see what rights you have when you dont get paid,none plus you cant sue the city that has deep pockets,one more thing the other day a story in the times family sue police because the police murder their son they win around 1.7 million the city diddnt want to pay,back to court the judge ruled to much money the family got 700k.now how can a human life be worth 700k but a poor little police man gets picked on and gets 4 millions.is it me or is there something very wrong here.the police should not be allowed to sue the taxpayers,taking a job as a public servent they give up rights not get more then the people paying them.
What a bunch of caniving losers most of our public servants are. And, the media labels them 'hero's'..........A Hero for what? Doing their damn jobs ???
Enough of these frivilous lawsuits.......... Oh, and it's not just the city of LA, it's the County, and State public servant who rips off the taxpayers too. And, don't forget the teachers union.
They sue, because they 'can'.