Carlos Parga v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Complaint

Alan Romero (SBN 249000)
1
ROMERO LAW, APC
2 80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880
Pasadena, CA 91101-2672
3 Telephone: (626) 396-9900
Facsimile: (626) 396-9990
4
Email: [email protected]
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 CARLOS PARGA
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
9 Case No.: 20STCV23732
CARLOS PARGA, an individual;
10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
11
(1) FEHA DISCRIMINATION (GOV. CODE §
12 vs. 12940(a);
(2) FEHA HARASSMENT (GOV. CODE §
13 12940(j));
(3) FEHA RETALIATION (GOV. CODE §
14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political 12940(h));
subdivision of the State of California; (4) UNLAWFUL RETALIATION (LAB. CODE §
15 TIMOTHY MURAKAMI, an individual; and 1102.5);
Electronically Received 09/14/2020 11:29 AM
DOES 1-99, inclusive;

16 [JURY FEE DEPOSIT POSTED]
17 Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 COMES NOW THE Plaintiff CARLOS PARGA (“Parga” or “Plaintiff”), who heretofore
25 alleges the following facts in support of his Unlimited Complaint for Damages and hereby respectfully
26 demands a speedy jury trial on all causes of action stated herein as against COUNTY OF LOS
27
28
1
UNLIMITED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 ANGELES (“COLA”), TIMOTHY MURAKAMI (“Murakami”), who along with DOES 1-99,
2 inclusive, is referred to herein as the “Defendants”.
3 CASE SYNOPSIS
4 1. Plaintiff was an up-and-coming Lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
5 Department who, based upon his prior assignments and qualifications, was bound to be promoted to
6 Commander within the Department.
7 2. While working as the Operations Lieutenant at Industry Sheriff’s Station, Plaintiff
8 reported directly to then-Captain Timothy Murakami, now Undersheriff. Murakami referred to Plaintiff
9 with racial epithets on various occasions, in the presence of independent, corroborating witnesses.
10 Murakami also referred to African American subordinates with the same racial epithets and refused to
11 hire or promote African Americans based solely upon their race.
12 3. Plaintiff was later denied promotions and transfers by Murakami solely based upon his
13 race, as there was no merit-based basis for Murakami’s intentional blocking of Plaintiff’s promotions
14 and transfers in Murakami’s present capacity as Undersheriff.
15 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
16 Jurisdiction and Venue
17 4. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of Plaintiff’s claims. Jurisdiction is
18 proper in this Court because the damages and claims alleged and demanded herein by Plaintiff exceeds
19 $25,000, and Plaintiff herein does make a demand and prayer for damages, in excess, of the jurisdictional
20 limit of this Court.
21 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant COLA in that it was, at all relevant
22 periods of time covered by this complaint, a political subdivision of the State of California maintaining
23 hundreds of places of business in the County of Los Angeles.
24 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Murakami in that he was, at all
25 relevant periods of time covered by this complaint, a resident of the County of San Bernardino.
26 7. Venue in this Court is proper in that, upon information and belief, Defendants reside in
27 the County of Los Angeles.
28
2
1 8. All the harm suffered by Plaintiff took place within this judicial district.
2 The Plaintiff
3 9. Plaintiff is, and was, at all relevant periods of time covered by this complaint, a resident
4 of the City of Chino, County of San Bernardino.
5 10. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants, jointly and severally.
6 The Defendants
7 11. Defendant COLA is a public entity who maintains a place of business, where it employed
8 Plaintiff at: 150 Hudson Avenue, City of Industry, CA 91744.
9 12. Defendant Murakami is an individual who maintains his primary residence in the County
10 of Los Angeles.
11 Relationship Between the Defendants
12 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendants, and each of
13 them, were at all times mentioned herein the agents, servants, and employees of each other, or otherwise
14 were acting with the full knowledge and consent of each other. Plaintiff is further informed and believes,
15 and upon such basis and belief alleges, that in doing all of the things alleged in this complaint,
16 Defendants, and each of them, were acting within the scope and authority of their agency, servitude, or
17 employment, and were acting with the express and/or implied knowledge, permission and consent of
18 one another. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and upon such basis and belief alleges, that
19 Defendants learned of, ratified, and/or approved the wrongful conduct of its agents and/or employees
20 identified in this Complaint as having engaged in wrongful conduct.
21 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all relevant times,
22 Defendants, and each of them, were business entities or individuals who owned, controlled, or managed
23 the business which has damaged Plaintiff, and are each therefore jointly, severally, and individually
24 liable to Plaintiff.
25 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all relevant times,
26 Defendants, and each of them, were in some fashion, by contract or otherwise, the successor, assignor,
27 indemnitor, guarantor, or third-party beneficiary of one or more of the remaining Defendants, and at all
28
3
1 relevant times to Plaintiff’s claims alleged herein, were acting within that capacity. Plaintiff further
2 alleges that Defendants, and each of them, assumed the liabilities of the other Defendants, by virtue of
3 the fact that each to some degree, wrongfully received and/or wrongfully benefited from the flow of
4 assets from the other Defendants, to the detriment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that by wrongfully
5 receiving and/or benefiting from Defendants’ assets, and in the consummation of such transactions, a de
6 facto merger of the Defendants, and each of them, resulted, such that Defendants, and each of them, may
7 be treated as one for purposes of this Complaint.
8 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all relevant times
9 mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the partners, agents, servants, employees, joint
10 venturors, or co-conspirators of each other defendant, and that each defendant was acting within the
11 course, scope, and authority of such partnership, agency, employment, joint venture, or conspiracy, and
12 that each defendant, directly or indirectly, authorized, ratified, and approved the acts of the remaining
13 Defendants, and each of them.
14 Factual Allegations
15 17. On November 12, 2019, Undersheriff Tim Murakami (“Murakami”) of the Los Angeles
16 County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) vetoed Claimant’s job transfer on an unlawful basis. This was
17 one of several vetoes by Murakami of Claimant’s job transfers which were made on an unlawful basis.
18 In the six months preceding the filing of this claim, Murakami had personally intervened to block various
19 transfers that would have benefited Claimant, in violation of California law, Labor Code §§ 1102.5 &
20 98.6, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Los Angeles County Charter Section 30, and Los
21 Angeles County Civil Service Rule 25.
22 18. Previously, on or about May 1, 2019, Chief Joseph Dempsey requested that Chief Larry
23 Delmesse, then Chief-of-Staff for LASD, transfer Plaintiff to his Jails Investigations Unit as the
24 Supervising Lieutenant. Chief Delmesse informed Chief Dempsey that this transfer would not be
25 permitted by Undersheriff Murakami. There was no legitimate basis for this veto by Murakami.
26
27
28
4
1 19. Murakami also took it upon himself to personally approve all transfers of Sergeants and
2 Lieutenants in order to personally control transfers of subordinates. This is highly unusual in that no
3 pervious Undersheriff has maintained this level of control over Departmental movement.
4 20. On or about December 9, 2019, Plaintiff spoke with Chief Eliezer Vera. Chief Vera
5 informed Plaintiff that Murakami was inexplicably blocking Plaintiff’s transfers and promotions. Chief
6 Vera told Plaintiff that although Plaintiff likely had a substantial basis for a lawsuit against LASD, that
7 Plaintiff should “tread lightly,” for, among other reasons, that Plaintiff’s son, a LASD Deputy, could
8 also be retaliated against.
9 21. Moreover, in the six months prior to the filing of this government claim, Claimant has
10 been denied multiple opportunities to participate in promotional interviews for positions such as:
11 Captain of East Los Angeles Station, Captain of Pico Rivera Station, Captain at Compton Station,
12 Captain at South Los Angeles Station, Captain at Transit Bureau, Jail Investigative Unit, Operation Safe
13 Streets, Homicide Bureau, Narcotics Bureau, Major Crimes Bureau, and Training Bureau. Claimant
14 was denied opportunities to transfer to other LASD job opportunities throughout the County of Los
15 Angeles.
16 22. When the Captain of the Training Bureau called Murakami to vet Claimant’s transfer,
17 Murakami responded, “Carlos will never come to this unit as long as I am here.” Murakami has also
18 informed various LASD employees that as long as Murakami was still in the LASD, that Claimant would
19 never promote.
20 23. The stated pretext for Murakami blocking these transfers was that Murakami alleged that
21 Claimant did not have the requisite one year of experience in an equivalent position. No such one-year
22 prerequisite existed, as other, less-qualified transfer candidates had their transfers approved by
23 Murakami despite their lack of the one-year experience qualification.
24 24. Claimant was transferred to South Los Angeles Station as an overnight Watch
25 Commander, a demotion in that Claimant was overqualified for this position and had already been a
26 Watch Commander far earlier in his career. Claimant had previously served as a Division Aide, and the
27 transfer to Watch Commander was a severely adverse employment action.
28
5
1 25. Claimant worked as the Operations Lieutenant for Murakami at the LASD Industry
2 Station until March 2018. Claimant is a Mexican American Hispanic employee of the LASD. Murakami
3 is a Japanese American Asian employee of the LASD. Both Claimant and Murakami speak some
4 Japanese. Murakami would harass and discriminate against Claimant on the basis of Claimant’s race.
5 Murakami would refer to Claimant and African American subordinates as “kurombo” on an ongoing
6 basis. This term is the Japanese equivalent of the n-word, and is equally offensive to those who
7 understand Japanese, such as Claimant. In the avoidance of doubt, the use of this racial slur by Murakami
8 was as offensive as if he had been using the English equivalent: the n-word. This racial slur was regularly
9 used directly towards Claimant, who Murakami knew could speak some Japanese as a result of Claimant
10 having been raised with a Japanese stepfather. Murakami also informed Claimant that he refused to hire
11 African Americans.
12 26. Murakami’s racist language included, but was not limited to, the following:
13 (a) “You’re as dumb as a kurombo.”
14 (b) “If it wasn’t for me, my kids would be dumb.” (Murakami referring to his Mexican
15 American wife.)
16 (c) “I’m not going to give those kurombos a job.” (Murakami explaining why he would
17 not give a job to qualified LASD African American employees Jim Beamon and Art
18 Scott.)
19 27. During the latter part of 2016, Murakami informed Plaintiff that an African American
20 female, Lieutenant Tracy Stewart had interviewed for Plaintiff’s Operations Lieutenant position prior to
21 Plaintiff. Murakami characterized Stewart as a “wreck” and that “would never hire a kurombo.”
22 28. Claimant also sought to discipline Industry Station Deputy Joanne Arcos (“Arcos”), who
23 had a long history of complaints of illegal conduct. Murakami informed Claimant that Arcos enjoyed a
24 special relationship with him, and that Arcos was immune from any discipline that Claimant would seek
25 to have imposed upon Arcos. Claimant was also present when Murakami personally assailed Industry
26 Station Andrew Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) who had made claims of illegal conduct by Arcos, wherein
27
28
6
1 Murakami stated that he intended to destroy Rodriguez’s career as a result of his protesting of illegal
2 conduct and orders by Arcos.
3 29. Murakami was upset when an Industry Station line Lieutenant found Arcos culpable of
4 misconduct warranting discipline during an investigation where Arcos was found guilty of unlawful
5 conduct, ordering the Lieutenant to change a disciplinary recommendation from a suspension to a
6 written reprimand only. Claimant is also aware that Arcos received discipline for an illegal pursuit that
7 required a punishment of suspension, but Murakami ensured that Arcos was only given a written
8 reprimand. Claimant is aware that Arcos had multiple written complaints, despite the fact that Arcos
9 testified at the Rodriguez trial that she had never had such written complaints lodged against her. Arcos
10 would regularly meet with Murakami in his office with the door closed, which was unusual for a line
11 Deputy to meet with a station commander with such frequency and intimacy. Murakami also engaged
12 in improper conduct in relation to use of force and other violent incidents involving Industry Station
13 Deputies, refusing to investigate such allegations against favored Deputies. Claimant protested this
14 illegal implementation of authority and unlawful orders of Murakami, especially with regard to the
15 enabling of the criminal and abusive acts of Arcos.
16 30. Murakami’s quotes relating to Arcos during the period of time that Claimant was the
17 Operations Lieutenant at Industry Station included:
18 (a) “Your job is to make sure [Arcos] doesn’t get in trouble.”
19 (b) “Don’t tell me how to run my station.” (In relation to Claimant complaining about
20 Arcos’ bullying behavior towards other Deputies.)
21 (c) “What can they do to me? I’m going to retire anyways.” (In relation to Claimant’s
22 warnings about Arcos being a problem Deputy within the Department.
23 (d) “[Rodriguez] is a piece of shit…. If [Rodriguez] ever gets his job back and comes
24 back to the station, I am going to find something to get him fired.”
25 31. Claimant was on track to be promoted to Commander, but has had his career prospects
26 destroyed by Murakami on the basis of Claimant’s protected status, in violation of California law, Labor
27
28
7
1 Code §§ 1102.5 & 98.6, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Los Angeles County Charter, and
2 Los Angeles County Civil Service Rules.
3 32. Claimant cannot promote due to the fact that any unit supervisor that hires Claimant fears
4 that they will be retaliated against by Murakami.
5 33. Plaintiff’s previously filed Government Claim has resulted in the opening of a COLA
6 Policy of Equity and LASD Internal Affairs investigations. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
7 thereupon alleges, that Plaintiff has, or will, suffer retaliation as a result of his initiation of, and being a
8 witness in, these investigations.
9 34. Based upon his qualifications, assignments, and past performance, Plaintiff was on track
10 to be promoted to at least Commander, but has had his career prospects destroyed by Villanueva and
11 Murakami on the basis of Plaintiff’s engaging in protected activities and his protected statuses.
12 No Claims Arising from Privileged Conduct
13 35. In the avoidance of doubt, Plaintiff does not herein allege any claim for damages as
14 against Defendants for any privileged action, such as the conducting of an investigation by a public
15 entity. Plaintiff, however, reserves the right to claim all damages arising out of consequences or actions
16 resulting from, or occasioned by, such a privileged investigation by a public entity.
17 36. Plaintiff expressly excludes from this Complaint any privileged act by any Defendant to
18 this action that would otherwise result in a Special Motion to Strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §
19 425.16.
20 Applicable Provisions of the County Charter and Civil Service Rules
21 37. Los Angeles Civil Service Rule 25 states that: “No person in the classified service or
22 seeking admission thereto shall be appointed, reduced or removed, or in any way favored or
23 discriminated against in employment or opportunity for employment because of race, color, religion,
24 sex, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, age, national origin or citizenship, ancestry,
25 political opinions or affiliations, organizational membership or affiliation, or other non-merit factors,
26 any of which are not substantially related to successful performance of the duties of the position. "Non-
27 merit factors" are those factors that relate exclusively to a personal or social characteristic or trait and
28
8
1 are not substantially related to successful performance of the duties of the position. Any person who
2 appeals alleging discrimination based on a non-merit factor must name the specific non-merit factor(s)
3 on which discrimination is alleged to be based. No hearing shall be granted, nor evidence heard relative
4 to discrimination based on unspecified non-merit factors. “
5 38. Section 30 of the Los Angeles County Charter states the following: “The purpose of this
6 article is to establish a Civil Service System for the classified service which shall provide County
7 government with a productive, efficient, stable, and representative work force by: (1) Recruiting,
8 selecting, and advancing employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge, and skills relevant
9 to the work to be performed. (2) Retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance,
10 correcting inadequate performance, and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot
11 be corrected.”
12 39. Further, Murakami’s exercise of undue command influence in destroying disciplinary
13 investigations into his favored subordinate Joanne Arcos violated the following COLA rules and
14 regulations: (1) Los Angeles County Police of Equity, Policies, Procedures and Guidelines § 910 on
15 cooperation with administrative investigations; (2) Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy
16 Manual 9.020 on employee accountability; (3) Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy Manual
17 9.010 on Equal Employment Opportunity and Non-Discrimination; (4) Los Angeles County Civil
18 Service Rule 25 on merit system employment; (5) Los Angeles County Code 5.08 on equal employment
19 opportunity; (6) Los Angeles County Code 5.10 on the policy of diversity; (7) Los Angeles County
20 Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/005.00 – Accountability; (8)
21 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/010.40 –
22 Authority of Rank; (9) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures
23 Rule No. 3-01/010.50 – Manner of Exercising Authority; (10) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
24 Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/010.62 – Managers and Supervisors Orders; (11) Los
25 Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.05 – Extent
26 of Supervision; (12) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule
27 No. 3-01/020.30 – Responsibility for Subordinate Supervisors; (13) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
28
9
1 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.35 – Organizational Control; (14)
3 Manner of Giving Orders and Instructions; (15) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of
4 Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.60 – Responsibility for Subordinates; (16) Los Angeles
5 County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.61 – Welfare of
6 Subordinates; (17) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule
7 No. 3-01/020.62 – Relationship with Subordinates; (18) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
8 Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.63 Evaluation of Subordinates’ Work; (19) Los
9 Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.70 –
10 Responsibility for Conduct of Subordinates; (20) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of
11 Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.80 – Conformance with Department Manual of Policy and
12 Procedures; (21) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule
13 No. 3-01/030.07 – Immoral Conduct; (22) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies
14 and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.05 – General Behavior; (23) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
15 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.10 – Obedience to Laws,
16 Regulations, and Orders; (24) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and
17 Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.13 – Relationships and Mentoring; (25) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
18 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.23 – Workplace Violence; (26) Los
20 Violation of Workplace Violence Policy; (27) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of
21 Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.27 – Retaliation; (28) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
22 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.28 – Reporting of Workplace
23 Violence and/or Retaliation; (29) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and
24 Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.29 – Supervisor Responsibilities; (30) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
25 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.34 – During the Investigation; (31)
27 Unnecessary/Inappropriate Interference in an Investigation; (32) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
28
10
1 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.75 – Bribes, Rewards, Loans, Gifts,
2 Favors; (33) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-
3 01/030.85 – Derogatory Language; (34) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies
4 and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/040.65 – Tampering with Evidence; (35) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
5 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/040.69 – Honesty Policy; (36) Los
7 Dishonesty/False Statements; (37) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and
8 Procedures Rule No. 3-01/040.75 – Dishonest/Failure to Make Statements and/or Making False
9 Statements During Departmental Internal Investigations; (38) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
10 Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/040.76 – Obstructing an Investigation/Influencing a
11 Witness; (39) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No.
12 3-01/040.90 – Reporting Information; (40) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of
13 Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/050.05 – Performance of Duty; (41) Los Angeles County
14 Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/050.10 – Performance to
15 Standards; and (42) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule
16 No. 3-01/050.15 – Duties of Deputy Personnel.
17 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
18 40. Plaintiff presented a Tort Claim to COLA on February 28, 2020. COLA notified Plaintiff
19 that his Tort Claim had been rejected on April 23, 2020 by means of letter dated April 27, 2020. This
20 action is being commenced within six months of this date in accordance with Gov. Code § 945.6. A
21 true and correct copy of this Notice of Rejection is heretofore attached as “EXHIBIT 1”.
22 41. A Right-to-Sue Letter was timely obtained from the Department of Fair Employment and
23 Housing on June 19, 2020 on behalf of Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of this Right-to-Sue Letter is
24 heretofore attached as “EXHIBIT 2”.
25 //
26
27
28
11
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FEHA DISCRIMINATION
3 (GOV. CODE § 12940(a))
4 (Against All Defendants)
5 42. Plaintiff realleges, and incorporates herein by their reference, each and every allegation
6 contained in the foregoing Paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. Further, all allegations
7 set forth in this cause of action are pled upon information and belief, unless otherwise stated.
8 43. Defendants were an employer.
9 44. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.
10 45. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to one or more of the following adverse employment
11 actions: (1) demoted; (2) denied any employment benefit or privilege; (3) denied hire or promotion; (4)
12 denied or forced to transfer; (5) denied work opportunities or assignments; (6) reprimanded; or (7)
13 terminated.
14 46. Defendants’ substantial motivating reason(s) for taking these adverse employment
15 actions against Plaintiff was one or more of the following discriminatory bases: (1) ancestry; (2) color;
16 or (3) race.
17 47. Plaintiff was harmed as a result of these adverse employment actions.
18 48. Defendants’ decision to impose adverse employment actions upon Plaintiff was a
19 substantial factor in causing this harm to Plaintiff.
20 49. In doing the things herein alleged, the acts and conduct of Murakami constituted
21 “malice,” “oppression” and/or “fraud” (as those terms are defined by Civ. Code §3294(c)), in that these
22 acts were intended by Murakami to cause injury to Plaintiff and/or constituted despicable conduct
23 carried on by Murakami with willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, with the intention
24 of Murakami to deprive Plaintiff of property and legal rights, and were authorized or approved by
25 Murakami, justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof, in
26 order to deter Murakami from similar conduct in the future, should be made.
27
28
12
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FEHA HARASSMENT
3 (GOV. CODE § 12940(j))
8 51. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.
9 52. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct arising out of the following
10 protected bases: (1) ancestry; (2) color; or (3) race.
11 53. The harassing conduct was severe or pervasive.
12 54. A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the work
13 environment to be hostile or abusive.
14 55. Plaintiff considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive.
15 56. Supervisors engaged in the conduct. Defendants and/or their supervisors and agents
16 knew, or should have known, of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective
17 action.
18 57. Plaintiff was harmed.
19 58. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
27
28
13
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FEHA RETALIATION
3 (GOV. CODE § 12940(h))
8 61. Plaintiff was retaliated against on account of one or more of the following protected
9 bases: (1) participated as a witness in a discrimination or harassment complaint; or (2) reported or
10 resisted any form of discrimination or harassment;
11 62. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to the following adverse employment actions as a result: :
12 (1) demoted; (2) denied any employment benefit or privilege; (3) denied hire or promotion; (4) denied
13 or forced to transfer; (5) denied work opportunities or assignments; (6) reprimanded; or (7) terminated.
14 63. Defendants’ decision to subject Plaintiff to these adverse employment actions was based
15 upon Plaintiff having engaged in one or more of the following protected activities: (1) participated as a
16 witness in a discrimination or harassment complaint; or (2) reported or resisted any form of
17 discrimination or harassment;
18 64. Plaintiff was harmed, as a result of these adverse employment actions.
19 65. Defendants’ decision to subject Plaintiff to these adverse employment actions was a
20 substantial factor in causing this harm to Plaintiff.
28
14
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
3 (Lab. Code § 1102.5)
8 68. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) provides, in pertinent part, “[a]n employer, or any person acting
9 on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because
10 the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law
11 enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the
12 authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, . . . if the employee has
13 reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a
14 violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether
15 disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties.” This statute reflects the broad public
16 policy interest in encouraging workplace whistleblowers to report unlawful acts without fearing
17 retaliation.
18 69. Defendants were employers for purposes of California law.
19 70. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants, performing work on behalf of Defendants.
20 71. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to the following adverse employment actions: (1)
21 demoted; (2) denied any employment benefit or privilege; (3) denied hire or promotion; (4) denied or
22 forced to transfer; (5) denied work opportunities or assignments; (6) reprimanded; or (7) terminated.
23 72. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to the foregoing adverse employment actions in retaliation
24 for engaging in protected activities, including, but not limited to: (1) Los Angeles County Police of
25 Equity, Policies, Procedures and Guidelines § 910 on cooperation with administrative investigations;
26 (2) Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy Manual 9.020 on employee accountability; (3) Los
27 Angeles County Board of Supervisors Policy Manual 9.010 on Equal Employment Opportunity and
28
15
1 Non-Discrimination; (4) Los Angeles County Civil Service Rule 25 on merit system employment; (5)
2 Los Angeles County Code 5.08 on equal employment opportunity; (6) Los Angeles County Code 5.10
3 on the policy of diversity; (7) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and
4 Procedures Rule No. 3-01/005.00 – Accountability; (8) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
5 Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/010.40 – Authority of Rank; (9) Los Angeles County
6 Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/010.50 – Manner of Exercising
7 Authority; (10) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No.
8 3-01/010.62 – Managers and Supervisors Orders; (11) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
9 Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.05 – Extent of Supervision; (12) Los Angeles
10 County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.30 – Responsibility
11 for Subordinate Supervisors; (13) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and
12 Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.35 – Organizational Control; (14) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
13 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.55 – Manner of Giving Orders and
14 Instructions; (15) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule
15 No. 3-01/020.60 – Responsibility for Subordinates; (16) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
16 Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.61 – Welfare of Subordinates; (17) Los Angeles
17 County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.62 – Relationship
18 with Subordinates; (18) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures
19 Rule No. 3-01/020.63 Evaluation of Subordinates’ Work; (19) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
20 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/020.70 – Responsibility for Conduct of
21 Subordinates; (20) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule
22 No. 3-01/020.80 – Conformance with Department Manual of Policy and Procedures; (21) Los Angeles
23 County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.07 – Immoral
24 Conduct; (22) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No.
25 3-01/030.05 – General Behavior; (23) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and
26 Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.10 – Obedience to Laws, Regulations, and Orders; (24) Los Angeles
27 County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.13 – Relationships
28
16
1 and Mentoring; (25) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule
2 No. 3-01/030.23 – Workplace Violence; (26) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of
3 Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.26 – Violation of Workplace Violence Policy; (27) Los
5 Retaliation; (28) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No.
6 3-01/030.28 – Reporting of Workplace Violence and/or Retaliation; (29) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
7 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.29 – Supervisor Responsibilities;
8 (30) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.34
9 – During the Investigation; (31) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and
10 Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.37 – Unnecessary/Inappropriate Interference in an Investigation; (32)
12 Bribes, Rewards, Loans, Gifts, Favors; (33) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of
13 Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/030.85 – Derogatory Language; (34) Los Angeles County
14 Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/040.65 – Tampering with
15 Evidence; (35) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No.
16 3-01/040.69 – Honesty Policy; (36) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and
17 Procedures Rule No. 3-01/040.70 – Dishonesty/False Statements; (37) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
18 Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/040.75 – Dishonest/Failure to Make
19 Statements and/or Making False Statements During Departmental Internal Investigations; (38) Los
21 Obstructing an Investigation/Influencing a Witness; (39) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
22 Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/040.90 – Reporting Information; (40) Los Angeles
23 County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/050.05 – Performance
24 of Duty; (41) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-
25 01/050.10 – Performance to Standards; and (42) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual of
26 Policies and Procedures Rule No. 3-01/050.15 – Duties of Deputy Personnel.
27
28
17
1 73. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5, Defendants are also liable for a civil penalty not
2 exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation of this section.
9 order to deter Murakami from similar conduct in the future, should be made
10 //
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as against Defendants as follows, for:
3 1) Compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at time of trial.
4 2) A civil penalty of $10,000 for every violation of Lab. Code § 1102.5.
5 3) Attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to all applicable statutes or legal principles, including, but not
6 limited to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
7 4) Punitive, or exemplary damages pursuant to Civ. Code § 3294 as against Murakami only.
8 5) Civil penalties pursuant to statute.
9 6) Costs of suit incurred.
10 7) Prejudgment interest on all amounts claimed as permitted by law.
11 8) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
12
13 ROMERO LAW, APC
14
15 Dated: September 14, 2020 ____________/s/____________
16 Alan Romero (SBN 249000)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17 CARLOS PARGA
18
19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20 Plaintiff hereby makes demand for Jury Trial, and has timely posted the jury fee deposit.
21 ROMERO LAW, APC
22
23
Dated: September 14, 2020 ____________/s/____________
24
Alan Romero (SBN 249000)
25 Attorneys for Plaintiff
CARLOS PARGA
26
27
28
19
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

(800) 884-1684 (Voice) I (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov I Email: [email protected]
June 19, 2020
Alan Romero
80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880
Pasadena, CA 91101
RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

DFEH Matter Number: 202006-10473219
Right to Sue: Parga / County of Los Angeles et al.
Dear Alan Romero:
Attached is a copy of your complaint of discrimination filed with the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) pursuant to the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. Also attached is a copy of your
Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12962, DFEH will not serve these
documents on the employer. You must serve the complaint separately, to all named
respondents. Please refer to the attached Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue for
information regarding filing a private lawsuit in the State of California. A courtesy "Notice
of Filing of Discrimination Complaint" is attached for your convenience.
Be advised that the DFEH does not review or edit the complaint form to ensure that it
meets procedural or statutory requirements.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing


June 19, 2020
RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

To All Respondent(s):
Enclosed is a copy of a complaint of discrimination that has been filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in accordance with Government
Code section 12960. This constitutes service of the complaint pursuant to Government
Code section 12962. The complainant has requested an authorization to file a lawsuit.
This case is not being investigated by DFEH and is being closed immediately. A copy of
the Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue is enclosed for your records.
Please refer to the attached complaint for a list of all respondent(s) and their contact
information.
No response to DFEH is requested or required.
Sincerely,


June 19, 2020
Carlos Parga
6854 Isaac Court
Chino, California 91710
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Carlos Parga,
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaint was filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective June
19, 2020 because an immediate Right to Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no
further action on the complaint.
This letter is also your Right to Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Right to Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,

1 COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
3
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
4
In the Matter of the Complaint of
5 Carlos Parga DFEH No. 202006-10473219
6 Complainant,
7 vs.
8 County of Los Angeles
150 Hudson Avenue
9 City of Industry, California 91744
10 Timothy Murakami
11 4700 Ramona Boulevard
Monterey Park, California 91754
12
Respondents
13
14
1. Respondent County of Los Angeles is an employer subject to suit under the
15 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
16 2. Complainant Carlos Parga, resides in the City of Chino State of California.

17 3. Complainant alleges that on or about June 19, 2020, respondent took the
18 following adverse actions:
19 Complainant was harassed because of complainant's race, ancestry, color.
20 Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's race, ancestry,
color and as a result of the discrimination was terminated, denied hire or promotion,
21
reprimanded, demoted, denied any employment benefit or privilege, denied
22 accommodation for pregnancy, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or
forced to transfer.
23
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted
24 any form of discrimination or harassment, participated as a witness in a
discrimination or harassment complaint and as a result was terminated, denied hire
25
26
27 -1-
Complaint – DFEH No. 202006-10473219
28 Date Filed: June 19, 2020
1 or promotion, reprimanded, demoted, denied any employment benefit or privilege,
denied or forced to transfer.
2
3
Additional Complaint Details: On November 12, 2019, Undersheriff Tim Murakami
4 (“Murakami”) of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) vetoed
Claimant’s job transfer on an unlawful basis. This was one of several vetoes by
5 Murakami of Claimant’s job transfers which were made on an unlawful basis. In the
six months preceding the filing of this claim, Murakami had personally intervened to
6 block various transfers that would have benefited Claimant, in violation of California
7 law, Labor Code §§ 1102.5 & 98.6, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Los
Angeles County Charter, and Los Angeles County Civil Service Rules.
8
Murakami also took it upon himself to personally approve all transfers of Sergeants
9 and Lieutenants in order to personally control transfers of subordinates. This is
highly unusual in that no pervious Undersheriff has maintained this level of control
10 over Departmental movement.
11
Moreover, in the six months prior to the filing of this government claim, Claimant has
12 been denied multiple opportunities to participate in promotional interviews for
positions such as: Captain of East Los Angeles Station, Captain of Pico Rivera
13 Station, Captain at Compton Station, Captain at South Los Angeles Station, Captain
at Transit Bureau, Jail Investigative Unit, Operation Safe Streets, Homicide Bureau,
14
Narcotics Bureau, Major Crimes Bureau, and Training Bureau. Claimant was denied
15 opportunities to transfer to other LASD job opportunities throughout the County of
Los Angeles.
16
When the Captain of the Training Bureau called Murakami to vet Claimant’s transfer,
17 Murakami responded, “Carlos will never come to this unit as long as I am here.”
18 Murakami has also informed various LASD employees that as long as Murakami
was still in the LASD, that Claimant would never promote.
19
The stated pretext for Murakami blocking these transfers was that Murakami alleged
20 that Claimant did not have the requisite one year of experience in an equivalent
position. No such one year prerequisite existed, as other, less-qualified transfer
21 candidates had their transfers approved by Murakami despite their lack of the one
22 year experience qualification.
23 Claimant was transferred to South Los Angeles Station as an overnight Watch
Commander, a demotion in that Claimant was overqualified for this position, and had
24 already been a Watch Commander far earlier in his career. Claimant had previously
served as a Division Aide, and the transfer to Watch Commander was a severely
25
adverse employment action.
26
27 -2-
1
Claimant worked as the Operations Lieutenant for Murakami at the LASD Industry
2 Station until March 2018. Claimant is a Mexican-American Hispanic employee of the
LASD. Murakami is a Japanese-American Asian employee of the LASD. Both
3
Claimant and Murakami speak some Japanese. Murakami would harass and
4 discriminate against Claimant on the basis of Claimant’s race. Murakami would refer
to Claimant and African-American subordinates as “kurombo” on an ongoing basis.
5 This term is the Japanese equivalent of the n-word, and is equally offensive to those
who understand Japanese, such as Claimant. The use of this racial slur by
6 Murakami was as offensive as if he had been using the English equivalent: the n-
7 word. This racial slur was regularly used directly towards Claimant, who Murakami
knew could speak some Japanese as a result of Claimant having been raised with a
8 Japanese stepfather. Murakami also informed Claimant that he refused to hire
African-Americans.
9
Murakami’s racist language included, but was not limited to, the following:
10
11 • “You’re as dumb as a kurombo.”
• “If it wasn’t for me, my kids would be dumb.” (Murakami referring to his
12 Mexican-American wife.)
• “I’m not going to give those kurombos a job.” (Murakami explaining why he
13 would not give a job to qualified LASD employees Jim Beamon and Art Scott.)
14
Claimant also sought to discipline Industry Station Deputy Joanne Arcos (“Arcos”),
15 who had a long history of complaints of illegal conduct. Murakami informed
Claimant that Arcos enjoyed a special relationship with him, and that Arcos was
16 immune from any discipline that Claimant would seek to have imposed upon Arcos.
Claimant was also present when Murakami personally assailed Industry Station
17 Andrew Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) who had made claims of illegal conduct by Arcos,
18 wherein Murakami stated that he intended to destroy Rodriguez’s career as a result
of his protesting of illegal conduct and orders by Arcos.
19
Murakami was upset when an Industry Station line Lieutenant found Arcos culpable
20 of misconduct warranting discipline during an investigation where Arcos was found
guilty of unlawful conduct, ordering the Lieutenant to change a disciplinary
21 recommendation from a suspension to a written reprimand only. Claimant is also
22 aware that Arcos was received discipline for an illegal pursuit that required a
punishment of suspension, but Murakami ensured that Arcos was only given a
23 written reprimand. Claimant is aware that Arcos had approximately multiple written
complaints, despite the fact that Arcos testified at the Rodriguez trial that she had
24 never had such written complaints lodged against her. Arcos would regularly meet
with Murakami in his office with the door closed, which was unusual for a line Deputy
25
to meet with a station commander with such frequency and intimacy. Murakami also
26
27 -3-
1 engaged in improper conduct in relation to use of force and other violent incidents
involving Industry Station Deputies. Claimant protested this illegal implementation of
2 authority and unlawful orders of Murakami, especially with regard to the enabling of
the criminal and abusive acts of Arcos.
3
4 Murakami’s quotes relating to Arcos during the period of time that Claimant was the
Operations Lieutenant at Industry Station included:
5
• “Your job is to make sure [Arcos] doesn’t get in trouble.”
6 • “Don’t tell me how to run my station.” (In relation to Claimant complaining
7 about Arcos’ bullying behavior towards a complaining female deputy, Deputy Maura
Espinoza.)
8 • “What can they do to me? I’m going to retire anyways.” (In relation to
Claimant’s warnings about Arcos being a problem Deputy within the Department.)
9 • “[Rodriguez] is a piece of shit…. If [Rodriguez] ever gets his job back and
comes back to the station, I am going to find something to get him fired.”
10
11 Claimant was on track to be promoted to Commander, but has had his career
prospects destroyed by Murakami on the basis of Claimant’s protected status, in
12 violation of California law, Labor Code §§ 1102.5 & 98.6, the Fair Employment and
Housing Act, the Los Angeles County Charter, and Los Angeles County Civil Service
13 Rules.
14
Claimant cannot promote due to the fact that any unit supervisor that hires Claimant
15 fears that they will be retaliated against by Murakami.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -4-
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Alan Romero, am the Attorney in the above-entitled complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The matters alleged are based
3
on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
4
On June 19, 2020, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
5 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
6 Pasadena, CA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 -5-

Carlos Parga v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carlos Parga v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carlos Parga v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What allegations is the plaintiff making against the defendants?

What allegations is the plaintiff making against the defendants?

What positions did the plaintiff and defendant Murakami hold?

What positions did the plaintiff and defendant Murakami hold?

Alan Romero (SBN 249000)

DOES 1-99, inclusive;

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

June 19, 2020

RE: Notice to Complainant’s Attorney

Dear Alan Romero:

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

June 19, 2020

RE: Notice of Filing of Discrimination Complaint

No response to DFEH is requested or required.

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 I Elk Grove I CA I 95758

June 19, 2020

RE: Notice of Case Closure and Right to Sue

Dear Carlos Parga,

Department of Fair Employment and Housing

16 2. Complainant Carlos Parga, resides in the City of Chino State of California.

You might also like