Case Background
Plaintiff Saif Hussain filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. He brought the action against his employer, the Los Angeles Unified School District, alongside individual Defendants Christos Elia Chrysiliou, Talal Balaa, and Peyman Soroosh Moghadam. The legal dispute began when Hussain filed his initial complaint on July 24, 2017. He subsequently filed a second amended complaint on May 4, 2017. On August 4, 2017, Hussain amended the complaint to substitute the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education for a previously unnamed Defendant. The case moved through the legal system for several years until it regularly came on for a jury trial on November 12, 2025, in Department 89 of the Court. The Honorable Ruth Ann Kwan presided over the trial proceedings.
Cause
The lawsuit arose from whistle-blower retaliation under California Labor Code Section 1102.5. Hussain reported safety concerns to individuals who held administrative and oversight roles within his employment hierarchy. Specifically, he disclosed information showing that the school district violated or failed to comply with California building and safety regulations. Hussain maintained that he possessed reasonable cause to believe that the school district had failed to comply with these building and safety rules. Following these disclosures, the school district subjected Hussain to an adverse employment action.
Injury
The adverse employment action taken by the school district caused Hussain to suffer non-economic harm. The primary injuries involved the past emotional distress, mental suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life resulting directly from the retaliation he faced after reporting the regulatory violations.
Damages Sought
Hussain sought compensatory damages to redress the harm inflicted by the school district's retaliatory employment actions. The requested damages encompassed compensation for past non-economic losses and future non-economic losses rooted in the emotional and psychological toll of the adverse workplace actions. Furthermore, Hussain sought to recover the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred throughout the multi-year litigation under California law.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Saif Hussain
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Robert William Reed | Carney R. Shegerian
Defendant(s): Los Angeles Unified School District, Christos Elia Chrysiliou, Talal Balaa, and Peyman Soroosh Moghadam
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Todd Picker | Charlie L. Hill | Alexander Molina
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Hussain argued that the school district operated as his legal employer and maintained direct authority over his daily work duties. His legal team asserted that Hussain acted as a protected whistleblower when he reported the district's failure to adhere to California building and safety codes. Counsel argued that Hussain chose to report these issues because he reasonably believed the district was operating in direct violation of state laws. The Plaintiff's attorneys argued that the school district retaliated against Hussain by executing an adverse employment action against him. They contended that his protected safety disclosures served as a contributing factor in the district's decision to penalize him. Finally, counsel argued that this unlawful workplace retaliation functioned as a substantial factor in causing Hussain severe personal and emotional harm.
Defense
The Defendants filed a formal answer denying generally and specifically every material allegation contained in the Plaintiff's complaint. Defense counsel argued that Hussain failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a valid cause of action or legal claim. The district asserted governmental immunity under the California Tort Claims Act. Representatives for the district argued that every action taken regarding Hussain was privileged and undertaken with good cause and in good faith. They asserted that the district did not engage in any severe or pervasive conduct that altered his working conditions or created a hostile environment.
The defense further argued that all employment decisions regarding Hussain rested upon legitimate, non-retaliatory, and lawful business reasons. Counsel claimed that even if a protected category played a motivating factor, the district would have taken the identical employment actions anyway for independent reasons. Additionally, the defense argued that Hussain failed to properly mitigate his damages, failed to exhaust necessary administrative remedies, and missed applicable statutes of limitations deadlines. The district concluded that any emotional or physical injuries fell under the exclusive remedy provisions of the California Workers' Compensation Act.
Jury Verdict
The twelve-member jury was regularly impaneled and sworn to try the case. After hearing the complete presentation of evidence and the closing arguments from both legal teams, the jury received instructions from Judge Ruth Ann Kwan. The Court directed the jury to deliberate and return a special verdict form answering specific factual questions regarding the whistle-blower retaliation claim.
The jury answered "Yes" to whether the Los Angeles Unified School District acted as Hussain's employer. They found that Hussain disclosed the building and safety violations to a person with authority over him or to an employee authorized to investigate and correct legal noncompliance. The jurors determined that Hussain possessed reasonable cause to believe the district was violating California building and safety regulations. They also confirmed that the district subjected Hussain to an adverse employment action and that his protected disclosures acted as a contributing factor in that negative decision.
The jury found that the school district's conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Hussain. Crucially, the jury answered "No" when asked if the school district proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action anyway for legitimate, independent reasons.
On December 16, 2025, the jury foreperson signed the completed special verdict form. The jury awarded Hussain a total of $1,000,000.00 in compensatory damages. The entire award consisted of past non-economic losses, while the jury awarded $0.00 for future non-economic losses. Following the verdict, Judge Ruth Ann Kwan issued a final judgment on January 21, 2026. The Court ordered that Hussain recover the full $1,000,000.00 from the school district. The Court also ruled that Hussain could recover costs and attorneys' fees under California Labor Code Section 1102.5(j), alongside post-judgment interest calculated at an annual rate of seven percent.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
