More than $25,000 went missing from a police department. The city hired an outside investigator to determine what happened but stopped the investigation after the investigator shifted the focus of the investigation to a supervisor. The police chief maintained that the investigation should have continued. Several months later, the city declined to renew the police chief’s contract and terminated the chief’s employment due to budget-related concerns. The chief alleged he was terminated in retaliation for refusing to participate in what the chief alleged was as an unlawful cover-up. At trial, the chief won a nearly $1 million judgment against the city based on his claim for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5(c).
After another law firm handled the jury trial. LCW took over the matter on appeal. LCW argued to the California Court of Appeal that the police chief had not engaged in protected activity under Labor Code section 1102.5(c) because complying with the city’s direction to stop the investigation did not violate any law. Senior Counsel Urban successfully reinforced this point at oral argument, and the Justices repeatedly asked the chief’s legal counsel to identify the law that was violated.
The Court of Appeal adopted LCW’s reasoning and reversed the judgment, concluding that the police chief’s refusal to stop the investigation was not protected activity under section 1102.5(c). The Court of Appeal’s final disposition directed the trial court to enter judgment in the city’s favor, reversed the attorneys’ fees award, and awarded the city its costs on appeal. LCW’s appellate advocacy secured the reversal of the nearly $1 million judgment, and substantially reduced the city’s exposure to attorneys’ fees at the trial-court level.