The City Attorney’s Office is asking a judge for a stay on a lawsuit filed by a former Los Angeles police captain seeking damages over his termination until another judge rules on the captain’s bid for reinstatement and back pay with benefits.
Ex-Capt. Alejandro Vargas was fired after an internal investigation determined he gave false statements regarding a relationship with a civilian department employee, but Vargas alleges in his Los Angeles Superior Court petition that he was denied due process.
Vargas also filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against the city on Jan. 30 alleging harassment and whistleblower retaliation in which he seeks unspecified damages. On Wednesday, the City Attorney’s Office filed court papers with Judge Kristin S. Escalante, who is managing the lawsuit, to put the case on hold until the other judge rules on Vargas’ petition.
“The similarity of evidence and issues presents a significant risk of inconsistent rulings and a waste of judicial resources (and) thus, in the interest of judicial economy and fundamental fairness, the court should stay plaintiff’s civil action pending resolution of his petition,” the City Attorney’s Office states in its court papers.
If the city and the LAPD are victorious in the petition, many issues in the lawsuit may be precluded, according to the City Attorney’s Office’s court papers, which further state that if on the other hand Vargas prevails, he will have to file a revised lawsuit and/or dismiss it in its entirety given that the lawsuit concerns the same discipline and subsequent administrative proceedings and seeks claims of compensation through back pay.
In his petition filed May 12, Vargas says the LAPD Board of Rights panel upheld only one allegation, which accused him of making untrue statements regarding his reputed association with a police dispatcher. The board found him not guilty of another count and the case was reduced after other allegations were found to be time-barred, the petition states.
“A false-statement allegation carries uniquely grave consequences for a peace officer and frequently becomes the driving basis for termination,” according to the petition. “If LAPD suspected Vargas of dishonesty, pursuant to LAPD Policy, the assigned investigator was required to give him notice, confront him with alleged inconsistencies and permit him to clarify or explain the statements during the investigation.”
The LAPD failed to follow due process, according to the petition.
The Internal Affairs notification to Vargas referred to alleged “misconduct by a department employee in the form of detrimental workplace behavior,” but the “vague and generic description failed to provide meaningful notice that he was allegedly being investigated for engaging in a sexual, intimate, romantic, dating or otherwise inappropriate relationship with a subordinate,” according to the petition.
The notice also did not inform him that his responses and denials during the interrogation could later be “transformed” into a dishonesty or false statement allegation, the petition further states.
“The record demonstrates that the alleged relationship accusation — already deemed out of statute by the department’s own documentation — became the driving force behind the investigation, interrogation strategy, credibility determinations and eventual termination decision,” the complaint alleges.
The petition also contends that the department failed to provide Vargas a “constitutionally adequate Skelly hearing,” a reference to a pre-disciplinary due process procedure in California that guarantees permanent public or civil service employees the right to respond to proposed termination, suspension or demotion before the disciplinary action is finalized.
Vargas is asking that the termination be set aside and that he be reinstated to his previous position or to an equivalent one, with back pay. His petition states that even if he is not reinstated he should receive back pay and benefits.