City of Berkeley, as represented by its City Attorney and AALRR Partner Ruth M. Bond, Wins Summary Judgment in Case Brought by Berkeley Police Officer Terminated For Misconduct

11.12.2024

AALRR Partner Ruth Bond, working closely with the Berkeley City Attorney Farimah Brown, recently won summary judgment in favor of the City of Berkeley and its Police Department in an employment case, Minassian v. City of Berkeley, et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 22-CV-008801. The Court upheld the Berkeley Police Department’s decision to terminate the Plaintiff from his probationary position as a police officer because the officer repeatedly engaged in misconduct.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff Vahe Minassian was a former Berkeley Police Officer who the Chief of Police released from probation for documented misconduct, some of which the Department’s Internal Affairs Division investigated and sustained. About two months before his probationary period ended, Minassian broke his finger while in the field and went on medical leave. The City terminated him during his leave following a careful review of his employment record and the pending allegations of misconduct.

Plaintiff Minassian claimed that the City and its Police Department (collectively the “City” or “Defendants”) discriminated and retaliated against him by terminating his employment while he was on medical leave. He filed a complaint against Defendants asserting causes of action under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940, et seq. (“FEHA”) for discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation. He also alleged retaliation under Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 98.6.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING

Defendants moved for summary judgment to dispose of the case in its entirety before trial and the Court granted Defendants’ motion. Applying the burden shifting test for discrimination claims set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, the Court found that Minassian had not presented sufficient evidence of a disputed material issue of fact to warrant a trial, and the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Regarding Minassian’s disability discrimination claim, the Court found that the undisputed facts demonstrated either that (1) Minassian was not qualified for his employment as a police officer, or (2) the Berkeley Police Department had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Minassian’s employment. These reasons included that Minassian made decisions related to a vehicle pursuit that put himself and other officers at risk, he disobeyed orders and abandoned his post, misused his body-worn camera, and made discourteous statements to a detainee. Defendants also presented evidence that Minassian had engaged in racial profiling during traffic stops of vehicles, and that he failed to investigate a criminal threat. All of this misconduct took place before Minassian made a request to take medical leave due to a disability.

Regarding Minassian’s claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation or engage in a good faith interactive process, the Court found that the undisputed facts demonstrated that Defendants accommodated Minassian’s physical disability by placing him on paid medical leave upon learning of it.

Regarding Minassian’s claim for retaliation, the Court similarly dismissed this claim based on the City’s same legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for terminating Minassian’s employment.

In sum, the Court granted summary judgment as to all of Minassian’s causes of action, thereby preventing his case from proceeding to trial.

ANTI-SLAPP MOTION

While the summary judgment motion was pending, Minassian filed a motion to amend his complaint to add causes of action for defamation against an Internal Affairs sergeant and one of his supervising sergeants because of their involvement in investigating Minassian’s misconduct. Defendants filed a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“anti-SLAPP”) motion challenging the proposed amendments on the grounds that they threatened the City’s right to free speech and other protected conduct. One of the officers had investigated Minassian’s misconduct, while the other served as a witness in a misconduct investigation and made negative statements about Minassian. The Anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, protects certain government activity including official investigations of employee misconduct. In response to Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, Minassian withdrew his motion to amend his complaint to add new claims.

On May 31, 2024, the Court entered judgment for the City.

If you have any questions about this case or your agency is facing similar claims that require outside counsel representation, you may contact Partner Ruth Bond at ruth.bond@aalrr.com.