Judge tosses $2.9M retaliation verdict against Santa Ana

An Orange County judge has overturned a $2.9 million jury verdict against the city of Santa Ana in a former police administrator's retaliation case, finding no substantial evidence that her protected activity caused the adverse actions she said forced her out.

Judge Nathan R. Vu also conditionally granted a new trial on the same grounds if the judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed on appeal, wiping out a unanimous Dec. 5 award to plaintiff Rita Ramirez and entering judgment for the city on all claims.

Seymour Everett III of Everett Dorey LLP, lead trial counsel for the city of Santa Ana, said the court weighed all the facts and ruled for the city based on the substantial evidence and the law.

"The Court found that Plaintiff's claims of alleged adverse employment actions were not causally linked to her alleged "whistleblower" activity". We are confident the decision will be affirmed in any future appellate challenge," Everett said.

The ruling clears the way for Santa Ana to seek fees and costs. Rita Ramirez v. City of Santa Ana et al., 30-2022-01287702-CU-OE-NJC (O.C. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 21, 2022).

The court found Ramirez's alleged adverse employment actions began before any legally protected activity, undercutting her retaliation theory, according to the city. Ramirez did not allege sexual harassment or gender discrimination and testified at trial that colleagues treated her with respect.

"The City denies the Plaintiff's conduct was alleged 'whistleblower activity,' which occurred long before she voluntarily retired at the age of 55 with full and complete retirement benefits," Everett said. "Plaintiff testified she engaged in alleged whistleblower activity in September 2020 when she was ordered as a manager to write a memo for human resources to investigate the complaints of employees who attended a remote conference during Covid."

Ramirez, a 32-year law enforcement veteran hired in July 2017 as police administrative manager, sued in October 2022. She alleged former Police Chief David Valentin and his command staff forced her out after she reported gender-based mistreatment, including pressure to align with one of two "competing cliques" and submit to "gang-like" loyalty tests. She said commanders Jose Gonzalez and Robert Rodriguez told her to "pick a camp" or risk ending up "at the bottom of the food chain."

Her relationship with leadership deteriorated after a September 2020 Women Leaders in Law Enforcement conference that colleagues mocked as a "pajama party." Valentin directed her to write a memo on the treatment of female employees, allegedly expecting her to identify women so they could be "dealt with." Instead, Ramirez described double standards and retaliation; Valentin dismissed the memo as "very vanilla," according to court filings.

Ramirez said her duties were reduced and that, after she disclosed an email Valentin sought to withhold under a Public Records Act request, she lost her records role. In March 2022, she voluntarily went on leave and was reassigned to facilities, learning of the move from a department-wide email. She retired July 7, 2022, alleging constructive termination, a theory the jury accepted in rejecting the city's claim she left voluntarily.

John Barber of Elite Trial Group and Lawrence J. Lennemann of the Law Office of Lawrence J. Lennemann represented Ramirez.

"We believe the decision of the unanimous jury, who spent many weeks listening to the evidence, was correct and was supported by substantial evidence," Barber said in an emailed statement Friday. "We disagree with the court's ruling which disregards the jury's verdict as it is contrary to the overwhelming facts presented at trial and the relevant law. We will be pursuing an appeal and expect the appellate court to reinstate the judgment."