The Los Angeles City Attorneys’ Office maintains in new court papers that an LAPD detective did not experience backlash for complaining about an alleged attempt by City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez to interfere with his attempt to serve a search warrant on a marijuana business, and that therefore his whistleblower suit should be dismissed.
Detective Cesar Contreras’ Los Angeles Superior Court complaint alleges that he suffered retribution for identifying and reporting what he believed to be violations of state and federal law and the state and federal constitutions.
Rodriguez is not a defendant in the suit.
But in pleadings filed Thursday with Judge Gail Killefer, the City Attorney’s Office says Contreras can’t back up his claims.
“The undisputed evidence makes clear that throughout the approximately four-year time span of events in this case, plaintiff did not suffer any adverse employment action, nor is he able to establish any (connection) to any of the alleged retaliatory acts or non-existent adverse employment actions,” the City Attorneys’ Office maintains in its court papers.
Moreover, the contentious environment that Contreras himself created has been alleviated because he was transferred out of Rodriguez’s district, according to the court papers.
According to the suit, Contreras was serving a search warrant on a business in November 2020 in which the owner had previously been arrested for operating an unlicensed marijuana dispensary. The businessman later obtained the only two licenses for selling marijuana in Rodriguez’s District 7, according to the suit.
That day, an LAPD captain briefed Rodriguez about the warrants, according to the suit, which also claims that the business owner subsequently told Contreras that Rodriguez had informed him about the warrants.
Contreras reported to the captain what he believed to be an obstruction of justice on Rodriguez’s part.
“To protect City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez and in violation of LAPD policy, (the captain) refused to take any action on the misconduct reported,” the suit alleges.
After Contreras spoke during a city-related meeting in December 2020, Rodriguez approached him and stated that he had “slandered her name and reported it to the LAPD,” according to the suit, which further states that her alleged comment was “the first act of retaliation taken by Councilwoman Rodriguez.”
After a subsequent city meeting, Rodriguez again approached Contreras and “threatened that she could have a conversation with the chief of police and have plaintiff gone,” the suit states.
In summer 2021, Contreras told another LAPD captain about Rodriguez’s alleged remarks and his obstruction of justice accusations were reported to the FBI, the suit states. But in further alleged retaliation, the first captain told Contreras that his career was “now in danger,” the suit states.
Contreras allegedly was put under heightened scrutiny in August 2021 after Rodriguez alleged he was not doing his job in following up on issues raised by the public. A meeting was held with members of the public with whom Rodriguez allegedly had issues, but they did not corroborate the councilwoman’s allegations against the plaintiff, according to the suit.
In late 2021, yet another captain told Contreras his “head was on a chopping block,” according to the suit, which further states that a deputy chief told Contreras that he “better fly straight” or he “would be gone.”
Contreras alleges he was removed from District 7 in January 2022 after Rodriguez demanded his transfer, even though he had worked there for six years. Another deputy chief told him the move was attributable to Contreras not arresting a homeless person and a panhandler near a supermarket, the suit filed in August 2022 states.
But according to the city’s court papers, the move was a lateral transfer and not an adverse employment action and there was no change in his salary benefits, overtime or promotional opportunities. Contreras cannot argue that he has diminished responsibilities in his new position, because, as he himself testified in a deposition, his new assignment “sorely needs his experience and expertise in improving the community dynamic,” the City Attorney’s Office argues in its pleadings.
A hearing on the city’s dismissal motion is scheduled for April 30. In the meantime, Contreras alleges he continues to experience retaliation that has affected his health and impacted his police career.