Jose Garza vs. City of Parlier

Case Background

Plaintiff Jose Garza filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the City of Parlier under Labor Code Section 1102.5. He alleged retaliation due to his refusal to improperly end an investigation. Garza also protested the unlawful nature of the directive to halt the investigation, which led to his wrongful termination.

The case was filed in the California State, Fresno County, Superior Court. Judges Gabriel Brickey, Kimberly Gaab, Rosemary McGuire, and Stephanie Negin presided over this case. [Case number: 21CECG02953]

Cause

Plaintiff Jose Garza, a veteran law enforcement officer and former Chief of Police for the City of Parlier, filed an unlimited complaint for damages against the City and related defendants. He sought a jury trial for all causes of action. Plaintiff alleged that he was unlawfully terminated by the City of Parlier on April 5, 2021, in retaliation for his investigation into the embezzlement of approximately $20,000 in public funds by Rosalia Solis, a long-time city employee.

Plaintiff had initiated an independent investigation into Solis’ actions in September 2020 and reported the misconduct to the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council. Despite Plaintiff’s instrumental role in reducing violent crime in the city, the Mayor and City Council retaliated against him. City Manager Sonia Hall and Mayor Alma M. Beltran attempted to halt the investigation and used their administrative authority to undermine Plaintiff’s career. This retaliation culminated in Plaintiff’s wrongful termination, a direct result of his whistleblowing activities protected under California Labor Code Section 1102.5.

Despite his success in reducing crime, Mayor Beltran publicly claimed that the termination was due to fiscal constraints. In reality, Plaintiff’s dismissal followed his refusal to cover up Solis’ actions. Additionally, City Manager Hall pressured Plaintiff to resign, citing political concerns about the upcoming election. On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the City Council detailing his whistleblowing actions, which directly led to his wrongful termination.

Damages

Plaintiff sought judgment against the Defendants as follows:

  • Compensatory damages
  • Attorney’s fees and costs under all applicable statutes or legal principles, including, but not limited to, Labor Code Section 1102.5 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.
  • Costs of suit incurred.
  • Civil penalties as allowed by statute.
  • Prejudgment interest on all claimed amounts, as permitted by law.
  • All other general, specific, direct, indirect, consequential, and incidental damages.
  • Any additional relief the Court deemed appropriate.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Jose Garza
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Alan Romero
  • Defendant(s): City of Parlier
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Neal E. Costanzo

Claims

Plaintiff discovered a felony embezzlement of cash within the police department and initiated an internal investigation. He also made a criminal referral to the District Attorney’s office. Subsequently, the City instructed Plaintiff to terminate the investigation and cease cooperation with the District Attorney. Plaintiff refused, believing the order to be illegal.

In response to this protected whistleblower activity, the City voted to remove Plaintiff from his position as Chief of Police. The vote passed by a 3-2 margin. Plaintiff argued that his removal was a direct result of his refusal to comply with the illegal order to halt the embezzlement investigation.

Plaintiff alleged retaliation in violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5 in this lawsuit. Defendants took several adverse employment actions against Plaintiff in retaliation for engaging in protected activities. These actions included asking impermissible, non-job-related questions, demoting Plaintiff, denying employment benefits or privileges, and refusing to hire or promote him. Plaintiff was also denied work opportunities, forced to transfer, and denied assignments. In addition, Defendants forced Plaintiff to resign, laid him off, reprimanded him, and suspended him. These adverse actions were taken as a direct result of Plaintiff’s protected activities.

Defense

Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s removal was justified by a legitimate reason. Specifically, the City claimed it could not afford Plaintiff’s salary for the upcoming year.

Jury Verdict

The trial lasted for 10 days, with the jury deliberating for only 4 hours before reaching its decision. On September 16, 2024, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding a total of $1,000,000 in damages. This amount included $200,000 in economic damages and $800,000 in non-economic damages.

Court Documents:

Available upon request