Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog

The portrayal of the seven members of the super-secret law enforcement clique - the seven men who promoted aggressive police tactics, offered cheers to civilian shootings and branded themselves with tattoos - is utterly disturbing.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand that, ironically, these group of officers were part of the agency's anti-gang efforts, with a specific goal of removing guns from L.A. streets.

Yet, they were in many ways a gang themselves. They even had a name: The Jump Out Boys.

The Los Angeles Times reported on the group last year, but formal action by the department wasn't announced until earlier this month, when agency officials reported members of the clique had been fired.

What's probably even more troubling is the fact that such mini-gangs within the agency aren't all that uncommon. The Times reports that the agency has a "long history" with such groups. In many cases, members of these groups were elevated to top positions within the department.

To the public, the top brass has promised to crack down on these cliques, saying that they encourage conduct that is unethical and inflict damage to the agency's reputation.

The Jump Out Boys, the sheriff's office said, hadn't done anything illegal, according to the results of an internal review. However, the image the group portrayed was not in line with the official one the agency is trying to present. A pamphlet created by the group, which ultimately proved to be its undoing, likened deputies to "alpha dogs," who must think and act like "wolves," (i.e., criminals) but never actually become wolves.

Additionally, the department noted that the identical tattoos the members of this group got were huge smiling skulls with skeletal hands grasping a gun. Those who had been involved in an on-the-job shooting would mark it with ink depicting smoke from the barrel.

Members of the group said this was to show their bravery, dedication and courage. They said their connection was no different than those formed by fraternity brothers or Boy Scouts.

But Boy Scouts aren't routinely armed with weapons and fraternity brothers aren't responsible for upholding the law. We expect law enforcement officers will be held to a different standard, and, given the immense trust we place in them, that they will view gunfire as an absolute last resort - not something to be celebrated.

In light of this, we certainly wouldn't doubt if there was more to the practices of this group. Many times, victims of police brutality are afraid to come forward, fearing - often with good reason - that the retaliation would be swift and fierce.

Just two years ago, the agency fired six corrections deputies who had their own hand gang symbols and called themselves the "3000 boys." There were allegations that this group was racist and in fact targeted prisoners on this basis. However, the extent of their "brotherhood" wasn't discovered until they brawled at a holiday party and ended up punching a female officer in the face.

Continue reading "L.A. County Sheriff's Office to Fire Internal "Gang" Members" »

In the past three years, county taxpayers have been footing an enormous bill to settle litigation involving the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand that between 2009 and 2012, the county's board of commissioners has authorized judgements, settlements, court costs and attorneys' fees in excess of $100 million.

What's more, that $100 million figure didn't include another approximately $20 million that had been paid out of a fund that is specifically set aside for these types of claims or the $500,000 paid to the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence.

That's according to Supervisor Gloria Molina, who recently reported that the county currently has more than 250 legal claims still pending against the agency.

A risk management and liability hearing was supposed to be held by commissioners in January, but the meeting has been postponed until the end of this month, as the county's CEO has requested additional time to review the information.

While any large operation may inevitably incur some liability, just based on sheer volume and the kind of business it conducts, the sheriff's department stands out in its liability payouts. During the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the county (i.e., taxpayers) shelled out nearly $108 million for all claims in all departments. The sheriff's office accounted for about a third.

Excessive force cases in particular shot up 75 percent that year. The county's litigation manager warned that this was something that the sheriff's office needed to watch. Setting aside the cost of such action, the fact is excessive force is illegal. That alone should be reason enough for the agency to re-evaluate its policies, procedures and practices!

The largest of these county-approved payouts was a $6 million class action case brought about due to gender discrimination. Another $5 million claim was filed after an impaired sheriff's deputy crashed his cruiser while on duty. Then there was a $4.3 million claim filed by a man who is now a paraplegic after a Taser injury while he was in his holding cell. Another $1.9 million payout was awarded to a man who was left paralyzed by a sheriff's deputy who shot him as he ran away.

More recently, the county agreed to pay more than $430,000 to the family of a man who died while in sheriff's office custody. The case stems from a 2007 arrest in La Peunte, in which officers apprehended a 41-year-old suspect who was visibly upset - yelling and striking vehicles. He reportedly tried to burglarize a home nearby. When deputies got there, he reportedly refused to obey orders.

They pepper-sprayed him. Then they handcuffed him. Then they restrained his ankles. Soon after, he was dead. The agency denied culpability, but agreed to pay the man's family in order to avoid having to go to court.

The sheriff's department's annual budget reaches almost $3 billion. For these kind of abuses to go on, routinely unchecked, is absolutely unacceptable.

Even the county's supervisor has said some management issues may to be blame for ongoing litigation concerns weighing on the agency.

Continue reading "Los Angeles County Has Paid $100M to Settle Sheriff Lawsuits" »

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is accused of gender discrimination and retaliation against Connie Cervantes, the agency's former 12-year director and manager of the Sheriff's Youth Foundation.

The Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers at the Okorocha Law Firm assert that Cervantes, who had gained national recognition for excellence in her role and strides in benefiting Los Angeles youth, was re-assigned to a lower post solely for her gender, at the behest of a new sergeant supervisor hired in 2011.

Multiple and independent sources verify that Cervantes was highly successful in her role - more so than anyone else who had previously held the position.

However in 2011, the department hired Sgt. A.J. Rotella as the executive director of the charity, effectively making him Cervantes' supervisor. At the outset, Rotella was hostile, not only directly to Cervantes but to women in general. Rotella told Cervantes that he "hated women," believed women to be "incompetent" and further promised that he intended to persuade Sheriff Lee Baca to terminate her employment because she was a female and he "wanted to work with males."

Cervantes' subsequent complaints to the department fell on deaf ears, and no action against Rotella was taken. Instead, Rotella was informed of these complaints, which served as further fuel for his hostility toward Cervantes. Rotella promised that both he and Sheriff Baca intended to get revenge on Cervantes for her complaints.

He made good on that promise by falsely alleging she had violated agency policy - when she had not - and taking multiple disciplinary actions against her. Prior to Rotella's arrival, she had not had a single write-up. Suddenly, she had many.

Further, when Cervantes requested a higher job title, per the national industry standard for someone with her professional duties and experience, Baca falsely asserted he could not give her this title because she lacked a bachelor's degree. However, a short time later, the sheriff awarded that higher title to another person - a male - who also did not have a bachelor's degree. To make matters worse, this individual had no prior experience whatsoever with the foundation. Along with that title, this other male individual was given a salary that was double what Plaintiff Cervantes was making ($120,000 annually to Cervantes' $60,000 annually).

She was subsequently re-assigned to a non-director position with a reduced salary and no prospect of promotion or further career advancement. Essentially, this is the equivalent of professional purgatory.

Specifically, the Okorocha Law Firm asserts that Cervantes was a victim of retaliation by the sheriff's department in violation of Gov. Code 12940 (h), as well as sex discrimination in violation of Gov. code 12940 (a), disparate treatment theory.

This is, but for Cervantes' gender, she would have been entitled to better pay, a higher title and prospective career advancement. Discrimination on this basis is illegal, and should not be tolerated by any entity - let alone one that is sworn to uphold the law.

Cervantes is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and interests.

Continue reading "LASD Sex Discrimination, Retaliation Lawsuit Filed by Okorocha Law Firm" »

The Okorocha Law Firm has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department's former youth charity director against the agency, county and the sheriff himself for violation of state and federal civil rights laws after she was fired for her husband's connection to a legal medical marijuana dispensary.

Specifically, our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys allege that this termination is a violation of the following:

• 42 U.S.C. 1983, U.S. Constitutional Amendment I, Assembly Clause for Unconstitutional Restraint Upon Freedom of Association in an Intimate Human Relationship of Marriage;


• Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy;


• California Fair Employment and Housing Act. CA Gov't. Code 12940(a) and California Code Regulations Title 2, 7292.2, Marriage Status Discrimination

Former Youth Charity Director Dawn Zamudio was fired last month, after sheriff's officials learned that her husband, Ramiro, ran a legal medical marijuana dispensary called Ironworks Collective in Marina Del Ray.

The case garnered statewide headlines, with an agency spokesman/sergeant calling the association "shocking," given that Sheriff Lee Baca had been particularly vocal in his criticism of such operations. However in that same breath, the spokesman noted that Zamudio had been an outstanding employee.

The spokesman went on to tell media representatives that Zamudio had withheld information from her employer regarding her husband's identity and business. Legally, however, she was not required to provide such information. The assertion that she was is a clear indication that the agency believes it has a right to know to whom employees are married, what each spouse's profession is and to use this information as a basis upon which to take adverse employment action if the top brass does not approve of a significant other's occupation.

This is exactly what the agency went on to do to Zamudio on Jan. 6, 2013. Zamudio asserts that the sole reason for her firing was marriage to a man who ran a business with which the sheriff does not agree.

To assert that she could not be married to Ramiro Zamudio and also be an employee of the sheriff's department is a clear violation of Dawn's federally-protected constitutional rights. The defendants in this case may not argue immunity, per the precedent set in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).

Additionally, this termination was a clear violation of public policy as it stemmed solely from the employee's engagement in protected activity - that is, marriage to a person of her choosing.

Flat-out, this is a clear case of discrimination by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the sheriff and the county. The legal livelihood of an employee's spouse is not just cause for termination - no matter what moral or ethical issues a supervisor has with it.

Plaintiff Zamudio, who had earned an annual salary of $103,700 in her previous position, is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, as the actions of the sheriff's department were both malicious and oppressive. The Okorocha Law Firm believes Zamudio is additionally entitled to general damages, as well as non-economic damages for emotional distress and attorney fees.

Initially, Zamudio had filed a discrimination complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, but that action was effectively closed as a result of her request for an immediate Right to Sue notice, which she was granted.

Continue reading "Okorocha Law Firm Files Suit on Behalf of Dawn Zamudio Against LASD for Civil Rights Violations" »