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 has accepted a reduced amount, avoiding a potential retrial on his damages.
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 S. 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.
The judge said on Aug. 3 that she would grant a conditional retrial regarding the $913,455 in out-of-pocket damages awarded to Chan, unless Chan agreed to a reduction of those specific damages to $667,000. Chan’s attorneys filed court papers with the court on Aug. 10 stating that he accepted the compromise offer, decreasing the officer’s overall damage award to $4.16 million.
The judge also previously denied the city’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. She heard both motions on July 28 and took them under submission.
In a related action, Escalante on Tuesday heard the officers’ motion for $3.94 million in attorneys’ fees, but delayed a ruling until Sept. 22 because she wants charted fees and work hours information from the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
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.