LAPD Sergeant Loses Retaliation Lawsuit Against City

Case Background

This employment dispute unfolded in the Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Maurice A. Leiter. Mario Cardona, a longtime Los Angeles Police Department officer, filed suit against the City of Los Angeles in May 2022. The case centered on allegations that the City retaliated and discriminated against him after he raised concerns about a parking ticket being unlawfully rescinded. The complaint claimed violations of California Labor Code §1102.5 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), including retaliation and workplace discrimination.

Cardona asserted that he made a protected disclosure about what he believed to be a violation of state law and that his department punished him in response. The City denied all wrongdoing and maintained that any personnel actions involving Cardona were legitimate and unrelated to his complaint.

The case went to a jury trial in May 2025 after extensive pretrial proceedings and discovery.

Cause

Cardona’s case stemmed from his claim that he had reported an internal practice involving the rescission of a parking ticket, which he believed violated state law. He said that after he disclosed this issue to a superior authorized to correct or investigate potential violations, he suffered retaliation through transfers and internal reviews.

The City argued that his report was misplaced and that none of the subsequent employment actions were retaliatory. The defense insisted those moves were made for valid operational and performance-based reasons.

Injury

Cardona alleged that the retaliatory actions damaged his career, reputation, and mental well-being. He claimed his transfer to the Patrol Division was punitive, causing emotional distress, humiliation, and financial strain. He also alleged that his referral to the department’s Risk Management Executive Committee (RMEC) further stigmatized him and affected his standing within the department.

The City denied that he suffered any compensable harm, asserting that his reassignment and review process were standard personnel measures unrelated to any protected disclosures.

Damages Sought

In his complaint, Cardona sought general and special damages for lost wages, benefits, and future earnings. He also sought compensation for emotional distress, pain, and suffering, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. The Court filings show that Cardona asked for both economic and non-economic damages “according to proof” at trial.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Mario Cardona

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Robert S. Brown | Corriea Beth

·       Experts for Plaintiff(s): Wayne Caffey | Laura Ines

Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Keimer E. Raymond | Douglas L. Lyon | Hydee Feldstein Soto | Scott Marcus | Aneta Freeman | Casey T. Shim

·       Experts for Defendant(s): Azadeh Famili

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Cardona’s attorney argued that his client acted as a whistleblower when he raised a legitimate concern about the improper rescission of a parking ticket and that his superiors retaliated by transferring him and subjecting him to internal review. Counsel maintained that these actions were adverse employment decisions made in response to his lawful disclosure under the Labor Code and FEHA.

Defense counsel argued that Cardona misunderstood the situation, and that no violation of law occurred. They emphasized that his transfer and referral to RMEC were based on legitimate administrative and operational reasons, not retaliation. The defense also asserted that the City followed standard procedures and that Cardona’s disclosure was not a contributing factor in any decision regarding his assignment.

Claims

Whistleblower Retaliation – Labor Code §1102.5

Cardona alleged that after he reported the unlawful rescission of a parking ticket, the City retaliated by transferring him and referring him to internal review committees. He claimed these actions constituted adverse employment measures prohibited under state whistleblower protections.

Retaliation and Discrimination – FEHA

He further alleged that the City’s conduct violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act by subjecting him to unfair treatment and retaliation based on his protected disclosures. He sought relief for emotional and professional harm stemming from those alleged violations.

The City firmly denied all allegations, filing a general denial that rejected every claim in the complaint. It also raised numerous affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action, statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, governmental immunity, and failure to mitigate damages.

Defense

The defense contended that Cardona was not retaliated against and that his actions did not qualify as protected disclosures under Labor Code §1102.5. They maintained that rescinding a parking ticket was not a violation of state law, and therefore his report did not trigger whistleblower protection.

The City’s attorneys emphasized that Cardona’s transfer to the Patrol Division and his referral to the Risk Management Executive Committee were ordinary administrative decisions unrelated to his complaint. They presented evidence that these personnel changes were made for independent, legitimate reasons.

The defense further argued that even if Cardona had made a protected disclosure, he failed to prove any causal connection between that act and the department’s employment decisions.

Jury Verdict

After closing arguments, the jury deliberated and returned its special verdict on June 13, 2025. The jury found that Mario Cardona did disclose information to a supervisor with authority to correct or investigate violations and that he reasonably believed the information he disclosed involved a violation of state law.

However, the jury determined that the City of Los Angeles did not take any adverse employment action against Cardona as a result of his disclosure. Specifically, the jury answered “No” when asked whether his transfer to the Patrol Division was an adverse employment action and “No” when asked whether his referral to the Risk Management Executive Committee (RMEC) was adverse.

Because the jury found no adverse employment action, it did not award any damages. The final verdict concluded that Cardona was not entitled to recover any economic or non-economic damages.

Final Judgment

On June 13, 2025, Judge Maurice A. Leiter entered judgment consistent with the jury’s findings. The Court ruled that Mario Cardona would recover nothing from the City of Los Angeles. It further ordered that the City recover its costs as permitted by law.

The case closed with a defense verdict, confirming that the City’s conduct did not constitute retaliation, discrimination, or a violation of whistleblower protection laws.

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