A Black firefighter began his career in a City’s fire department in the 1990s, was promoted to Captain in the early 2000s, and was later promoted to Battalion Chief (BC) in 2012.
In early 2021, the BC attempted to skip a rank by applying for promotion to Deputy Chief (DC). The rank between BC and DC is Assistant Chief (AC). The 2021 promotion process used a structured oral interview with standardized questions that a panel of senior officials, from both within and outside the City, scored independently. The panel used a forced ranking process, and the applicants were ranked based on their interview performance. The BC ranked second overall. The top-ranked candidate, who was White and held an AC position, was promoted.
The BC filed internal complaints beginning in 2021 related to workplace investigations, discipline, and alleged mistreatment. He was disciplined with a 48-hour suspension, which was unrelated to his prior complaints and based on separate conduct. He took an extended medical leave and, upon return, was required to complete a physical readiness test. In 2022, the BC filed an internal EEO complaint regarding how his discipline was delivered.
In 2022, two DC vacancies arose. As in 2021, the 2022 promotion process used a structured oral interview panel with independent scoring. The panel members included senior officials from within and outside the City who used forced rankings. The BC again applied. The panel members independently scored the candidates, ranking the BC near the bottom of the candidate pool. The two highest-ranked candidates, who were White and held AC positions, were promoted. The decision-makers for the 2022 DC promotion relied solely on panel rankings and did not discuss the BC’s race or prior complaints.
The BC did not challenge the 2021 and 2022 promotion decisions until he filed a lawsuit in 2023. The BC alleged that he was denied promotion in 2021 and 2022 because of his race, in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The BC also alleged that the City retaliated against him for his protected activity – such as internal complaints, participation in investigations, or opposition to perceived misconduct – by denying him a promotion and subjecting him to adverse employment actions.
LCW Partner Jesse Maddox, Partner Nathan Jackson, and Associate Attorney Charles Hellstrom aggressively represented the City during a five-week jury trial. The trial team successfully bifurcated the trial into liability and damages phases; used motions in limine to control the scope of the claims and evidence; was required to address multiple “me too” witnesses; and located key rebuttal evidence in the middle of the trial.
The jury returned a complete defense verdict for the City, finding that the BC’s race was not a substantial motivating reason the City selected others for the DC positions. The jury also concluded that the BC’s race was not a substantial motivating reason for his 48-hour suspension. The BC also lost his FEHA race and retaliation claims.