Los Angeles Settles Whistleblower Case for $5.75M

Case Background

Dr. Kristen Wheldon, a respected clinical psychologist, had provided psychological services for a key department within the City of Los Angeles for several years when a high-stakes disagreement with her superiors emerged. The central dispute began when Dr. Wheldon uncovered what she believed were serious ethical and procedural violations related to the department’s operational integrity.

The psychologist believed the violations created an immediate risk to public safety and professional standards. She meticulously documented her concerns and officially reported them through the proper internal channels, fulfilling her legal and ethical duty to the City and its residents. However, shortly after she made her report, the workplace dynamic shifted dramatically, and her professional environment became hostile. She alleged that the City's reaction was not to investigate the wrongdoing she cited, but to swiftly target her career.

Cause

Whistleblower Retaliation

Dr. Wheldon’s central accusation centered on the claim that the City of Los Angeles, through its various supervisors and agents, had retaliated against her after she blew the whistle. She maintained that the City’s actions including demoting her, taking away significant responsibilities, subjecting her to unwarranted and negative performance reviews, and isolating her from colleagues were direct punitive measures for having reported the serious misconduct. She asserted that this retaliation violated California Labor Code Section 1102.5, which exists to protect employees who report illegal or unethical activities by their employers.

Workplace Discrimination and Retaliation

The complaint included claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The retaliation against Dr. Wheldon had included a targeted campaign of harassment that created a hostile work environment. She argued the City’s actions constituted retaliation in violation of FEHA, as the negative treatment she experienced followed her protected activity of reporting the violations. Furthermore, the systematic isolation and eventual forced separation from her job amounted to illegal discrimination and a failure by the City to take reasonable steps to prevent that hostile environment from developing in the first place.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

A third claim maintained that the City’s conduct had been extreme and outrageous. Dr. Wheldon argued that the deliberate, targeted nature of the retaliation, which she said aimed to ruin her professional standing and career, resulted in severe emotional suffering. She claimed the City acted with the specific intent to cause her pain, necessitating treatment and preventing her from continuing her career.

Injury

Dr. Wheldon claimed significant damage to her professional reputation and her long-term earning capacity. She suffered substantial economic injury due to the loss of her salary, benefits, and the future value of her career track, which included anticipated promotions and raises. The prolonged stress, anxiety, and depression stemming from the hostile work environment and subsequent unemployment resulted in profound emotional distress. She had undergone psychological treatment and counseling, all of which contributed to mounting medical costs.

Damages Sought

Dr. Wheldon had asked the Court for a judgment covering all of her losses. The request included general damages to compensate her for the severe pain, suffering, and emotional distress she endured; special damages to cover her documented financial losses, such as lost wages and medical expenses; and reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the lengthy legal battle. She also sought pre-judgment interest on the damages awarded.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The litigation spanned several years after Dr. Wheldon first filed her complaint in February 2019. The two parties engaged in extensive discovery, exchanging thousands of documents and taking numerous depositions from witnesses, colleagues, and city officials. The legal teams spent considerable time preparing for trial, focusing on the core issues of motive and causation specifically, whether the City’s employment actions stemmed from legitimate performance concerns or from Dr. Wheldon’s whistleblowing.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff: Kristen Wheldon, Psy.D.

• Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Alyssa K. Schabloski

• Experts for Plaintiff(s): Susan Bleecker | Fernando Gonzalez

Defendant: City of Los Angeles

• Counsel for Defendant(s): Susan J. Rim | James P. Clark | Michael N. Feuer | Eric Brown

• Experts for Defendant(s): Paul Broadus | David Wellisch

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Counsel for Dr. Wheldon argued that the timing of the City’s adverse employment actions spoke louder than any of their justifications. They established a clear timeline, showing that within weeks of Dr. Wheldon’s protected reports, she had suddenly received a negative performance review after years of exemplary service. Her attorneys argued that the City had constructed a false narrative of poor performance specifically to justify its retaliatory actions and silence her. They maintained that the City’s internal investigation into Dr. Wheldon’s claims had been cursory and biased, a deliberate attempt to protect the internal parties she had exposed.

Defense

Attorneys for the City of Los Angeles consistently maintained that the personnel actions taken against Dr. Wheldon were legitimate, performance-based decisions, independent of her whistleblowing reports. They argued that the City had a duty to maintain standards and that Dr. Wheldon’s conduct had, at times, warranted disciplinary measures. The defense presented evidence suggesting that managerial concerns about Dr. Wheldon’s professional judgment had predated her reports and had simply reached a critical point at the time of her termination. They denied any intent to retaliate or inflict emotional distress, asserting that all employment decisions complied with City policies and employment law.

Settlement

As the trial date approached, and after the parties had engaged in extensive mediation, the City of Los Angeles and Dr. Kristen Wheldon reached a final resolution. The high-profile nature of the case, combined with the detailed evidence presented by the Plaintiff’s legal team, led to a negotiated settlement amount of five million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($5,750,000).

The settlement represented a significant win for Dr. Wheldon, affirming the strength of her whistleblower and retaliation claims. While the City did not admit any liability as part of the agreement, the substantial financial payment acknowledged the severity of the alleged injuries and the compelling nature of Dr. Wheldon’s evidence regarding lost wages, emotional distress, and damaged career prospects.

The confidential agreement closed the book on the lengthy legal battle, bringing resolution to the claims against the City and providing Dr. Wheldon with substantial compensation. The outcome served as a clear reminder of the serious legal risks government agencies face when employees allege they suffered adverse action after exposing internal misconduct.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com