LA County Fire Dept Settles Discrimination Suit for $635,127

Case Background

In a high-profile employment dispute that captured public attention, former Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) employee Anderson Mackey took legal action against the County of Los Angeles and the LACFD. Mackey filed his initial complaint in February 2023, initiating a lawsuit that alleged a pattern of serious misconduct within the prominent public safety agency.

The core of Mackey’s complaint asserted that the LACFD failed to maintain a workplace free from illegal discrimination and retaliation, a mandatory duty under state law. Mackey claimed the department subjected him to disparate treatment because of his status as a protected employee, and then systematically targeted him when he spoke up about the unfair working conditions and policies he experienced. The legal battle centered on proving that the adverse employment actions the department took against him were not legitimate management decisions but were instead illegal acts of discrimination and retribution for his protected activities.

Cause

The lawsuit, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, detailed specific violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The legal action rested on multiple, connected claims that the Defendants had created an intolerable and hostile workplace environment.

Disparate Treatment Mackey contended the department treated him unfairly compared to other employees, alleging that the LACFD discriminated against him in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment. These claims suggested that management subjected him to different standards, disciplinary measures, or career limitations that did not apply to colleagues outside of his protected class.

Retaliation A major component of the case involved retaliation. Mackey claimed that once he reported the perceived discrimination or raised internal complaints about the hostile environment, the LACFD retaliated. The department’s actions, according to the complaint, included measures meant to punish or marginalize him for speaking out, thereby discouraging others from reporting similar issues.

Failure to Prevent The complaint also included a cause of action for the failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the alleged discrimination and retaliation from occurring. This claim held that the LACFD’s leadership and management were aware of, or should have been aware of, the issues Mackey faced but failed to intervene effectively or implement proper controls.

Injury

Anderson Mackey’s legal team claimed the Plaintiff suffered significant, sustained harm as a direct result of the department’s illegal conduct. The injuries went beyond standard workplace stress. Mackey suffered substantial emotional distress, mental anguish, and physical symptoms related to the trauma of the alleged hostile work environment. The negative actions the department took also directly impacted his career trajectory, leading to lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and the loss of promotional opportunities and professional standing within the LACFD.

Damages Sought

The lawsuit sought extensive financial and punitive damages to compensate Mackey for his losses and to punish the Defendants for their alleged wrongdoing. The categories of damages included:

Compensatory Damages: Money to cover the emotional distress, pain, and suffering Mackey endured, as well as compensation for the loss of salary, benefits, and future earning potential.
Punitive Damages: Mackey sought punitive damages to punish the County and the LACFD for their alleged malice, oppression, or fraud in handling his employment issues, intending to deter similar conduct in the future.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs: As the prevailing party in an employment case, Mackey also sought recovery of the considerable fees and costs he incurred to pursue his legal rights against the large government entity.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The case began in early 2023 and proceeded through the required legal steps, including the Defendants filing their Answer and the initial stages of discovery. The defense vigorously contested all of Mackey’s allegations, asserting that the LACFD acted lawfully and professionally at all times.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Anderson Mackey

· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): David S. Harris | Tyler R. Dowdall | Christopher R Nelson

· Experts for Plaintiff: Lance Dore

Defendant(s): County of Los Angeles | Los Angeles County Fire Department

· Experts for Defendant(s): Alan Wallace | Bradford Thompson

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Mackey’s counsel, David S. Harris, presented a clear narrative that the LACFD created a toxic culture that did not tolerate dissent or deviations from unwritten norms. His team argued that Mackey stood up to unfair practices and, in response, the department systematically curtailed his career opportunities and created an environment designed to push him out. They maintained that the extensive medical and employment records they had compiled proved a direct connection between the LACFD’s discriminatory and retaliatory actions and Mackey’s resulting injuries and financial losses.

Defense

The defense team, led by Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, mounted a strong defense, arguing that all actions taken against Mackey were legitimate, non-discriminatory, and necessary management decisions. They claimed the department-based performance reviews, transfers, and disciplinary actions on Mackey’s work performance and conduct, which had nothing to do with any protected status or prior complaints. The defense challenged the severity of Mackey’s alleged injuries and questioned the financial models used to calculate his lost wages, maintaining that the County and the LACFD always followed departmental policy and state employment laws.

Court Settlement

Before the case proceeded to a public trial, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations to resolve the dispute privately. In November 2024, the Court received a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case, confirming that Anderson Mackey and the County of Los Angeles had reached a final, confidential agreement. This settlement avoided the risks and uncertainties of a jury trial, providing both parties with a certain outcome.

The County, without admitting liability or wrongdoing, authorized a significant payment to close the case. The final financial resolution reached was $635,127.

This settlement figure covered the compensatory damages Mackey sought for his emotional distress, lost wages, and attorney’s fees, bringing an end to the nearly two-year legal battle over alleged discrimination and retaliation within one of the region’s largest fire departments.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com