A judge has denied the city of Los Angeles’ motion to dismiss defamation and other claims in a lawsuit filed by an LAPD officer who contends she was falsely accused of wrongfully collecting overtime compensation.
In her Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit, Officer Isabel Morales says that even after her jury trial acquittal, retaliation by the LAPD continued. On Tuesday, Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that in addition to Morales’ defamation and whistleblower retaliation causes of action, she can also move forward with her claims for both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and gender discrimination.
Addressing the defamation claim, the judge wrote that the cause of action is based on the LAPD’s statements to the media and statements to her co-workers “which have provided fodder for harassment motivated by plaintiff’s gender.”
Regarding the gender discrimination allegation, the judge said that to this date Morales remains on a “no public contact status” without regular police authority and is relegated to the “kit room” while having to report to her commanding officer during each deployment room — orders that Morales contends are not given to male officers.
A kit room in a police department is a secure storage and supply area where officers check out and return specialized gear, weapons and equipment needed for their daily duties. The judge did dismiss Morales’ allegations of malicious prosecution, abuse of process and civil rights violations, giving the city some measure of victory in its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion, which was based on a statute intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights, including petitioning the courts.
In a sworn declaration opposing the city’s anti-SLAPP motion, Morales said no fewer than 10 supervisors authorized and signed the various overtime reports at issue and none 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 said. 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.
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.
Trial of Morales’ lawsuit is scheduled for Nov. 29, 2027.