Case Background
Elias Georgopoulos filed a complaint against the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, on July 19, 2022. He later filed a First Amended Complaint, to which the Defendants responded with an Answer on March 29, 2023. Georgopoulos worked as a Parking Control Officer for SFMTA's Department of Parking and Traffic starting at age 24 and later rose to a supervisor position. He alleged that he ranked first or second on eligibility lists for several promotions, including Assistant Director, Manager II, and Commander, but that the city passed him over each time. Georgopoulos identified as Hispanic-American and stated that he suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, which required workplace accommodations and had at one point confined him to a wheelchair for more than six months. He alleged that he filed two complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and received two Right to Sue letters before filing this action.
Cause
Georgopoulos brought six causes of action against the Defendants. These included race, national origin, gender expression and disability harassment under Government Code section 12940(j) of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; retaliation for opposing practices he believed constituted harassment under Government Code section 12940(h); intimidating, offensive, oppressive and abusive conduct under Government Code sections 12923 and 12940(j); failure to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation under Government Code section 12940(k); retaliation for opposing illegal activities under Labor Code section 1102.5; and wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy and implied contract.
Injury
Georgopoulos claimed that the alleged harassment and retaliation caused him severe emotional distress and physical injuries. He listed migraine headaches, nausea, anxiety, depression, weight fluctuation, hives, insomnia, body aches, acid reflux, blisters, and hair loss among his symptoms, for which he stated he received treatment and prescriptions from medical doctors.
Damages Sought
Georgopoulos asked the Court for restitution, injunctive relief, general and special damages including backpay and front pay, compensatory damages, and attorney fees and costs. He did not specify a dollar figure and instead requested damages according to proof at trial.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Elias Georgopoulos
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Eduardo G. Roy
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Daniel Quintero
Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco | San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Amy Frenzen | Nancy Harris | Janice P. Brown | Corrin M. Phillip
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Georgopoulos alleged that his direct supervisor, Shawn McCormick, used an ethnic slur against him on two separate occasions, once on July 16, 2020, and again during a later confrontation over a body camera policy. He also claimed that a senior supervisor, Nancy Amaya, made a crude remark about his sexual preferences, and that PCO Sterling Haywood repeatedly mocked his height and used derogatory names toward him. Georgopoulos stated that someone smeared feces on his locker and scratched a homophobic slur into it, and that sugar was poured into his vehicle's gas tank. He said supervisors and a commander mocked him using terms referencing his disabled parking placard, which he needed because of his rheumatoid arthritis.
Georgopoulos further alleged that he became a target of retaliation after he opposed several SFMTA citation practices that he considered fraudulent, referenced internally through terms such as "Cite on Site," "Block the Box," and "Sunday Funday." He claimed that former SFMTA Director Ed Reiskin wanted him terminated because his litigation history and his insistence on following department rules had become a costly distraction. Georgopoulos also described an incident involving payroll clerk Joyce Nelson, whom he reported for allegedly altering PCO timesheets; he claimed Nelson then threatened him and his wife, and that he was the one placed on administrative leave following the incident. He additionally alleged that a senior supervisor, Elenora Truvillion, told him "English only" after he greeted a coworker in Spanish, and that McCormick barred him from wearing a body camera he had worn since 2016 with the prior approval of a Deputy City Attorney.
Georgopoulos claimed that on May 16, 2022, in consultation with his physician, he concluded that he could no longer continue working under these conditions and that he was constructively discharged as a result.
Defense
The City and County of San Francisco and SFMTA filed a general denial to the First Amended Complaint on March 29, 2023, denying every allegation and denying that Georgopoulos suffered any injury or was entitled to relief. The Defendants raised thirty-four affirmative defenses. Among these, they argued that any employment actions taken against Georgopoulos rested on legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reasons, and that they would have made the same decisions regardless of any alleged discriminatory motive, citing the mixed-motive framework from Harris v. Santa Monica, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013), and Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., 219 Cal. App. 4th 466 (2013). The Defendants also asserted that Georgopoulos's own inappropriate conduct toward subordinates, coworkers and supervisors independently justified any adverse employment action. They further argued that Georgopoulos failed to exhaust his contractual and administrative remedies, failed to mitigate damages, failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective procedures available to him, and failed to timely file a claim under the Government Claims Act. The Defendants also asserted various immunities available to public entities under Government Code sections 815, 815.2, 818, 818.2, 818.8, 820.2, 820.4, 820.8 and 821.6, and denied that any conduct amounted to constructive discharge as defined under relevant case law.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to trial from March 17, 2025, through May 23, 2025, before Judge Daniel A. Flores in Department 514 of the San Francisco Superior Court. A jury of twelve people heard opening and closing statements, witness testimony, and admitted exhibits before returning its special verdict on May 23, 2025.
The jury found that the City qualified as an employer and that Georgopoulos had been its employee within SFMTA. On the disparate treatment claim, the jury found that the City did not subject Georgopoulos to an adverse employment action, closing that line of inquiry under the verdict form's instructions. On the retaliation claim under Government Code section 12940(h), the jury found that Georgopoulos did oppose practices he believed constituted race or national origin harassment, but found that the City did not subject him to an adverse employment action as a result, which also ended that inquiry.
On the harassment claim, the jury found that Georgopoulos was not subjected to harassing conduct because of his race or national origin, and was not subjected to harassing conduct because of his physical disability. Because the jury answered no to both adverse-action questions and no to both harassment-basis questions, the verdict form directed the jury to stop without reaching the questions on harassment severity, failure to prevent harassment, or damages.
The verdict form did not contain separate special verdict questions addressing the Labor Code section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claim or the wrongful constructive discharge and implied contract claim pled in the complaint.
The presiding juror, Natalie Ann Liang, signed and dated the verdict form on May 23, 2025. Based on this special verdict, the Court entered judgment on August 7, 2025, in favor of the City and County of San Francisco and against Georgopoulos, ordering that Georgopoulos take nothing from the Defendants. The judgment confirmed that SFMTA operated as a constituent department of the City rather than a separate party, and that Georgopoulos took nothing from SFMTA as well. The Court dismissed Does 1 through 100, awarded the City its costs as the prevailing party upon timely filing of a memorandum of costs, and retained jurisdiction over post-trial modifications to the judgment.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
