A police officer was added to a “WhatsApp” text group of officers who were all assigned to the same patrol shift. A district attorney discovered the text group while investigating another case. The officers had shared racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic texts and photos in the group chat. The DA notified the chief of police, and the department hired an outside investigator.
The investigation revealed that the police officer received and responded to discriminatory messages, but did not initiate them. The officer responded to racist texts with laughing emojis, links to Black Lives Matter-related social media posts that made light of the comments, and agreed to assist another officer in a charity event in response to the other officer’s use of anti-Semitic themes.
The chief reviewed the investigation and determined that the officer should be terminated for violating the department’s rules regarding its policing philosophy, the city’s personnel rules, the social media policy, and the anti-harassment policy. The chief determined that although the officer did not initiate discriminatory messages, the termination was proper due to the officer’s participation in and failure to report the messages.
The officer appealed to the civil service commission. After a hearing, the civil service commission upheld the termination. The officer then appealed to the city council, which also upheld the termination. The officer appealed this determination to the California Superior Court.
The Court also upheld the termination. Partner Scott Tiedemann and Associate Attorney Morgan Johnson successfully argued that the officer’s behavior supported the findings that the officer had violated the rules in question. The Court found that the officer was on notice of his duty to report such harassing language, and failed to do so. The Court agreed that terminating the officer was not an abuse of discrimination, and denied the officer’s request for an additional hearing.