A former Los Angeles police officer who is suing the city, alleging she was wrongfully fired on a false allegation of domestic violence, and who claims there was a hostile work environment for females at the LAPD, is getting a new judge in her case.
Ex-Officer Tawny Ramirez’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit allegations include discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, intentional misrepresentation and breach of written contract. Her contentions were aired as part of a Fox11 interview before she sued.
The case was initially assigned to Judge Stephen Pfahler, but he stepped aside Tuesday as Ramirez’s attorneys filed court papers stating that he was prejudiced against their client. Each side is allowed to file such a challenge without providing details. The new bench officer is Judge Richard Kemalyan, who was appointed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.
In her November Fox11 interview, Ramirez said her former boyfriend, also an LAPD officer, framed her after she accused him of domestic violence. She urged domestic violence victims to not be afraid, to stand firm in their faith and said that “God will never leave you.”
A representative for the City Attorney’s Office did not reply to a previous request for comment.
According to the lawsuit filed Feb. 5, as of July 2022 just under 20% of the LAPD’s sworn personnel were females, lending support to the plaintiff’s belief that there is a “culture and pattern of discrimination and harassment against female employees, which includes belittling, undermining and generally challenging the intellect of female personnel.”
The alleged discrimination “contributes, fosters and affirms a hostile work environment for females at the LAPD,” the suit further states.
Ramirez graduated from the police academy in February 2023 and was “passionate about the opportunity to give back to the city and communities that she was raised in,” the suit states. But her LAPD career began to unravel when she reported that her partner and senior patrol officer engaged in an unlawful detention and excessive use of force while on patrol in northwestern Los Angeles, according to the complaint.
After an internal LAPD investigation and interview, Ramirez received a non-appealable adverse employment action, but her partner was given a 10-day suspension with the option of an appeal, the suit further states.
“The unfounded adverse employment action caused plaintiff significant emotional distress and initiated a months-long campaign of sex and gender-based discrimination, harassment and clear retaliation,” the suit states.
In October 2023, Ramirez obtained a domestic violence stay-away order against her boyfriend, who she met at the academy and had dated until the relationship deteriorated, the suit states.
An internal LAPD hearing that was scheduled regarding Ramirez’s domestic violence allegation was canceled without explanation, according to her suit.
“The LAPD’s failure to report and fully and thoroughly investigate domestic violence allegations against its own officers results in many LAPD officers such as Ramirez feeling that their complaints will never being heard and/or silenced,” the suit states.
Then, in January 2024, Ramirez’s former boyfriend filed an internal affairs complaint against Ramirez based on what the suit describes as “entirely fabricated allegations” of domestic violence by the plaintiff.
Ramirez was not allowed to present evidence refuting the ex-beau’s allegations, which the suit alleges is a “clear sign that the LAPD had decided that her side of the allegations did not need to be heard.”
Ramirez was terminated as of February 2024, just before her employment as a permanent LAPD officer would have vested, preventing her from pursuing her “lifelong dream of being an upstanding peace officer in her community,” the suit states.
In October 2025, Ramirez was finally allowed to present evidence during another internal hearing and a month later a decision was reached that stated the domestic violence allegation against her was “baseless” and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the former boyfriend’s claim, the suit states.
“This provides further evidence that when plaintiff was terminated there was no true basis for her termination,” the suit adds.