However, the city never fired, demoted, suspended or denied the employee her compensation
An employee filing a whistleblower retaliation claim under California’s Labor Code should show that they were subjected to an adverse employment action materially affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment.
The case of Francis v. City of Los Angeles arose from the killing of the deceased in her home. A criminalist and DNA analyst working for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) reviewed the matter. She analyzed a swab from a bite mark and detected a DNA profile of a woman other than the deceased.
The employee suspected that the attack had a personal motive. This contradicted the LAPD’s working theory that two men killed the deceased during a botched burglary. In a conversation with the detective handling the case, the employee suggested investigating the deceased’s female coworker who had threatened her.
Another detective covering the case noticed irregularities in the prior investigation. The deceased’s widower informed the second detective that his ex-girlfriend, who was an LAPD officer, may have wanted to harm the deceased. The second detective reached out to the DNA analyst about her bite swab analysis. The ex-girlfriend was later arrested for the crime.
The DNA analyst, alleging whistleblower retaliation, filed a lawsuit against her employer, the City of Los Angeles. She claimed that the city violated section 1102.5(b) of the Labor Code. In response,...
Your personal data, your options, our responsibility We and our partners use cookies or similar technologies to access and store non-sensitive information such as your IP address. The processing o...