A longtime Los Angeles County deputy district attorney has tentatively settled litigation against the county in which he alleged his complaints about the sentencing directives of District Attorney George Gascón caused him to be transferred to a less prestigious post and impaired his career advancements.
Deputy District Attorney Phillip Glaviano’s Los Angeles Superior Court complaint alleged unspecified damages along with attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit followed the previous filings of multiple other cases by plaintiffs who allege they also have faced retaliation and demotions from Gascón for opposing his policies.
On Tuesday, Glaviano’s attorneys filed court papers with Judge William Fahey notifying him of a “conditional” resolution of the case with the expectation a request for dismissal will be filed by July 1, 2025.
No terms were divulged.
In their previously filed court papers, lawyers for the county denied Glaviano’s allegations and cited multiple defenses, including violation of the statute of limitations to file the case and that the plaintiff assumed the risk of any damages incurred.
According to Glaviano’s suit, he served as the head deputy district attorney in the Juvenile Division before he was transferred in October 2022 in an alleged management backlash to Central Division Trials — an assignment that involves personnel training.
“As such, plaintiff’s ability to promote has been severely impacted and his duties and responsibilities have been curtailed,” according to the suit filed in October 2023.
When he was named head of the Juvenile Division, Glaviano replaced Deputy District Attorney Shawn Randolph, who brought her own suit against the county concerning Gascón’s policies. She maintained she also was transferred to an inferior position. A jury in March awarded her $1.5 million in her first of two lawsuits.
According to Glaviano’s suit, Gascón and his staff developed a policy with a goal of sending most juveniles who committed violent crimes into diversion programs, and Glaviano was put in charge of overseeing implementation of the directive.
Gascón wanted his diversion program launched in mid-October, but Glaviano complained to management that the policy was unlawful, the suit stated. The directive remained, but was not enforced, according to the suit.
When Gascón was sworn into office in December 2020, he released orders effectively abolishing the ability of prosecutors to file certain crimes against juveniles if the crime also qualified as a strike, as well as the prosecution of juveniles for more than one crime even if they committed multiple offenses against multiple victims in one incident, the suit stated.
“The directive mandated that plaintiff must use alternative theories of prosecution that minimized a juvenile’s criminal conduct, no matter how violent, which did not accurately reflect the true offense,” the suit stated. “In essence, plaintiff was directed not to file `strike’ offenses against juveniles and this directive creates a false and misleading description to the court of the crimes that were actually committed.”
As an example, if a juvenile 16 or 17 years old robbed a victim by putting a gun to the victim’s head, Glaviano could not prosecute the juvenile for robbery because it is a strike offense, the suit stated.
Glaviano was directed to instead file a lesser crime against the juvenile, according to the suit, which stated that he told his supervisors that the presiding judge of the Juvenile Court was concerned that prosecutors were not being honest in court filings, petitions and representations to the court, calling it “intellectual dishonesty,” the suit stated.
Randolph had made numerous complaints about violations of the law caused by the special directives, including one requiring people to be notified of their rights as crime victims known as Marsy’s Law, and she was transferred in part due to being outspoken on the issue, the suit stated.