Case Background
Cecilia Cleveland, a veteran Latina detective with 33 years of experience at the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. Before the events that led to this legal battle, she had successfully worked across eight different commands without receiving a single negative performance review. From 2006 to 2022, she served in the Gang and Narcotics Division (GND), where she maintained an exemplary record. However, the atmosphere shifted in October 2021 when Captain Lillian Carranza took over as her supervisor.
Cause
Cleveland alleged that Captain Carranza initiated a campaign of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation almost immediately upon her arrival at GND. The friction began when Carranza targeted Cleveland for minor issues, such as having a department-issued gang jacket and a coffee mug on her desk. The situation escalated when Carranza disciplined Cleveland for using the word "shit" in a casual, non-disrespectful context during a phone call. Following these incidents, Cleveland claimed she was subjected to "pencil whipping"—a term describing the practice of piling on trivial and unsubstantiated disciplinary claims to build a negative file against an employee.
Injury
The workplace environment became increasingly hostile. Cleveland was forced out of her office, and her desk was moved to a K-9 scent room where dogs frequently urinated and defecated. She received the first negative performance evaluation of her career and was placed on a grueling 90-day special review. The stress and targeted treatment eventually forced Cleveland to leave her coveted GND assignment to avoid further demotion. This move resulted in the loss of her hazardous pay bonus and caused significant damage to her professional reputation and mental well-being.
Damages Sought
Cleveland sought a variety of damages for the harm she suffered. These included economic damages for lost pay and future earning capacity, as well as non-economic damages for emotional distress and damage to her reputation. She also requested compensation for the increased tax liability she would face from receiving a lump-sum settlement, along with coverage for her attorney fees and legal costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Cecilia Cleveland
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Terry M. Goldberg | Bradley C. Gage | Milad Sadr | Wayne C. Smith
Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles
Counsel for Defendant(s): Hydee Feldstein Soto | Scott Marcus | Aneta Freeman | Audrey Egan | Joseph Briones
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Cleveland’s legal team argued that the City violated several California labor and civil rights laws. They contended that Carranza’s actions constituted whistleblower retaliation because Cleveland had complained about the unfair treatment. They further claimed discrimination based on Cleveland's race, age, and gender, noting that male or younger employees were not subjected to the same harsh discipline for similar minor infractions. The lawsuit also alleged that the LAPD failed to prevent this harassment despite knowing about Carranza's history of controversial management.
Defense
The City of Los Angeles filed a general denial, contesting every allegation in the complaint. They argued that any disciplinary actions taken against Cleveland were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons related to her job performance and department policy. The defense maintained that the City had acted in good faith and that Cleveland had not suffered any compensable injury or loss due to their actions. They also asserted that Cleveland had failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing the suit.
Settlement
The case did not reach a jury verdict. After nearly two years of litigation and discovery, the parties reached an unconditional settlement to resolve the entire matter. On June 20, 2024, Cleveland's counsel filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case with the Los Angeles Superior Court. This resolution brought an end to the legal battle over Cleveland's final years at the Gang and Narcotics Division.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com
