A judge has granted a conditional retrial regarding future out-of-pocket damages awarded to one of four LAPD officers collectively awarded $14.6 million after alleging they were retaliated against for reporting serious safety hazards and issues at a firing range and armory.
The Los Angeles Superior Court panel found in favor of Officers Craig Burns, Alexander Chan, Mark Hogan and Kristine Salazar in April after a multiple-day trial in the courtroom of Judge Kristin Escalante. In their court papers, attorneys for the city denied that the Los Angeles Police Department retaliated or discriminated against the officers or that they suffered damages.
On Monday, the judge said she is granting a conditional retrial regarding the $913,455 in out-of-pocket damages awarded to Chan, unless Chan agrees to a reduction of those specific damages to $667,000. If he accepts the compromise offer, Chan’s overall damage award would be decreased to $4.16 million.
The judge also denied the city’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. She heard both motions on July 28 and took them under submission. Escalante gave Chan 30 days from Monday’s ruling to make up his mind.
In a hearing scheduled for Aug. 18, Escalante will hear the officers’ motion for $3.94 million in attorneys’ fees.
“The jury determined that plaintiffs proved they were unlawfully retaliated against by the department because they reported safety hazards and issues at the firing range and armory and that the department did not have independent, legitimate reasons for its adverse treatment of plaintiffs,” the officers’ attorneys state in their court papers.
All of the plaintiffs were employed by the LAPD for decades, received superior annual performance evaluations and were positively recognized for their excellent work, the plaintiffs’ lawyers further state.
In late 2018 and early 2019, the officers told their supervising sergeants and a lieutenant that there were serious safety hazards and issues at the firing range and armory, according to their attorneys’ court papers. The issues included training deficiencies that violated regulations, deficient lead ventilation systems, unsafe pit doors, non-functioning targets that also produced bullet fragment ricochets and other OSHA violations, as well as the unlawful distribution of assault weapons and magazine systems, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ pleadings.
In April 2019, each plaintiff who complained was removed from their positions at the same time, the officers’ attorneys contend. They suffered further backlash in the form of downgrades, discipline, transfers to patrol and other assignments with no advance training or responsibilities, and were told to stay away from recruits, the officers’ attorneys further stated.
All four officers suffered significant pain and damages due to the alleged retaliation, including losses of reputation and trust in the department and the derailment of their careers, each of which were on stable or upward tracks at the time, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ pleadings.
Salazar started the litigation by suing in December 2019.