In new court papers, a Los Angeles police officer is asking a judge to deny the city’s motion to dismiss defamation and other claims in her lawsuit, in which she says she was falsely accused of wrongfully collecting overtime compensation.
In her Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit, Officer Isabel Morales contends that even after her jury trial acquittal, retaliation by the LAPD continued. In a sworn declaration opposing the city’s lawsuit dismissal motion, Morales defends her actions.
“No less than 10 supervisors authorized and signed the various overtime reports, without question,” Morales says. “None of those supervisors were disciplined.”
At no time before July 15, 2023, did the court subpoena control officer question any overtime report submitted for processing on her behalf, Morales further says. An SCO for the LAPD is a designated officer within each command responsible for managing the receipt, service and tracking of court subpoenas for department personnel.
“To my knowledge, the SCO, was only given a slap on the wrist for his failures, while I suffered severe adverse employment actions,” Morales says.
In mid-2023, Morales was transferred to a position on the front desk office, which was understaffed and which involved regularly interacting with what she says were “vindictive and irate” members of the public.
“The front desk position removed me from typical police duties … necessary for experience, promotion and career advancement,” according to Morales.
While on a vacation, Morales learned that her schedule was switched to the daytime, creating a child-care conflict with her two children, she further says.
“It is customary for a discussion to be had with officers before a change like that would take place, but I was not given that courtesy,” according to the plaintiff.
Morales’ health worsened in August 2023, she says.
“I had frequent crying spells and could not sleep due to stress as a result of the treatment I was receiving at work and the fear of termination and began to experience hair loss and acne breakouts,” Morales says.
A psychologist put Morales on a temporary leave due to her stress, but her workers’ compensation claim was denied and she was told by the LAPD that she did not have a work-related injury, the plaintiff says.
Morales says many male LAPD officer purposely submitted false overtime reports, but none were punished and one was promoted.
But according to the City Attorney’s Office, which has filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Morales, the internal investigation that led to her discipline and subsequent referral for criminal prosecution was done in connection with the city’s protected speech and petitioning.
“By way of this lawsuit, (Morales) seeks to thwart the rights of (the city) and the LAPD from investigating alleged misconduct by one of its own police officers,” the City Attorney’s Office states in its court papers.
Among the other causes of action the city wants dismissed in addition to defamation are whistleblower retaliation, gender discrimination, civil rights violations, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis is scheduled to hear the city’s anti-SLAPP motion on April 28. The state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
According to her suit, Morales began her LAPD career as a probationary officer in January 2016 and in October of that year took part in arresting a man with a weapon tied to a July 2016 murder. By October 2017, Morales had completed her probation.
The trial for one of the suspects in the 2016 murder began in January 2022 and the next month the deputy district attorney prosecuting the case sent her an email telling her she was on call for testimony by March 1 of that year, then the prosecutor followed up with a subpoena, the suit states.
But Morales says she was never called to testify and the defendant was convicted. She also says a subpoena control officer never notified her of the verdict.
Unaware that the court case had concluded, in March 2022, Morales submitted an overtime report for on-call overtime compensation related to the trial, which she was entitled to do during the course of the trial while she was on-call, according to the suit, which further states that she continued to submit overtime requests until July 2022.