Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
9
10
11
CASE NO.:
ANNY HOLLISTER,
Plaintiff,
12
COMPLAINT FOR:
13
vs.
1.
Whistleblower Retaliation
[Lab. Code 1102.5]; and
2.
14
15
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1.
Plaintiff Sgt. Danny Hollister ("Hollister" or "Sgt. Hollister") is an adult and resides
23 'n San Diego County, California. He is a Sergeant with the San Diego Police Department ("SDPD").
24
2.
25
3.
The true names and capacities, whether individual or otherwise, of defendants Does
26 I through 20 are unknown to Hollister who, therefore, sues them by such fictitious names under CCP
27 474. Hollister is informed and believes that each of the defendants is responsible in some manner
28
4.
At all material times, all of the defendants were agents and employees of the other
efendants and when doing the acts alleged in this complaint, they acted within the course and scope
5.
OnApril8, 2016, Sgt. Hollister sent an email to SDPD Chief Shelley Zimmerman
omplaining that the City was violating the law, specifically California Vehicle Code 21057 and
DPD Department Policy 1.13, with regard to SDPD'spolicies and continued use ofmotorcades and
otorcade training. (See Exhibit 1). Sgt. Hollister made clear that SDPD was placing lives at risk
y continuing to employ the use of police motorcades and that he was being forced to violate the law
nd SDPD Department policy. Plaintiffs email explained that every other municipal police
10
epartment in California had terminated motorcade activities, in favor of the California Highway
11 Patrol, due to the inherent risks and liabilities. Sgt. Hollister also complained that by being forced
12 o engage in motorcade training and actual motorcades, he was risking suspension under SDPD
13
14
olicy and individual liability ifhe were involved in a motor vehicle collision.
6.
A few days after the email, Sgt. Hollister's supervisor, Lt. Steven Shaw ("Shaw" or
15 "Lt. Shaw"), confronted plaintiff and was visibly upset. Lt. Shaw told Sgt. Hollister that he had been
16
o angry with him that he had not been able to speak until then. Lt. Shaw chastised Hollister and
17 hreatened his career with SDPD, stating, "we are no longer on the same page" and "you are no
18
onger part of the unified front." Lt. Shaw informed plaintiff that he no longer wanted him on the
19
otor Training staff. Shortly thereafter, Lt. Shaw removed Sgt. Hollister from certain training
20
ctivities and eventually infmmed plaintiff that he would be removed from the Motor Unit
21
ompletely. Although plaintiff was reinstated, Shaw made derogatory connnents about him at the
22
quad line-up, undermining Hollister's ability to work effectively with his co-workers.
23
Sgt.
ollister's ability to work was diminished to the point that he recently had no reasonable choice but
7.
On Aptil28, 2016, Sgt. Hollister submitted a claim, under Cal. Gov. Code 900 et
26
eq., to the City ("Claim"). The City rejected Hollister's Claim on July 6, 2016. Plaintiff has
27
omplied with all applicable claims statutes. On April28, 2016, Sgt. Hollister sent a letter ("PAGA
28
etter"), via certified U.S. Mail, to the Califomia Labor and Workforce Development Agency, copied
Complaint For Retaliation and Penalties
2
1 o the City and the City pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code 2699.3. The letter, which was also hand
2
elivered with the Claim, detailed plaintiff's complaints. LWDA did not provide notice to Sgt.
ollister of its intent to investigate the alleged violations within 3 3 calendar days from the postmark
ate pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code 2699.3. True and correct copies of the Claim and PAGA letter
7
8
8.
9.
SDPD was Sgt. Hollister's employer, and Lt. Shaw and SDPD Chief Zimmerman
10
ere acting on behalf of SDPD when they committed the wrongful acts alleged in this complaint.
11
t. Shaw, Chief Zimmetman and other command staff were angry that plaintiff complained about
12
DPD's use of motorcades. ill response, Lt. Shaw acted on behalfofSDPD to retaliate against
13
gt. Hollister, in violation of California anti-retaliation law and SDPD's own anti-retaliation
14
olicy that prohibits retaliatory adverse employment actions (which are defined to "include, but
15 s not limited to, unwanted transfers, change in work assignment or location, denial ofleave
16
17
arassment, or other actions that adversely affect the work environment"). Specifically, Lt.
18
haw angrily insulted, demeaned, threatened and ridiculed plaintiff; accused Sgt. Hollister of not
19
oil owing orders; stripped him of certain training activities; informed plaintiff that he was being
20
emoved from the motor squad; and attempted to intimidate, harass, ostracize and humiliate Sgt.
21
ollister informing other officers during line up about plaintiffs complaints (e.g., a complaint
22
bout the "hostile environment" and another complaint about Lt. Shaw handing out gift cards to
23
24
Moreover, Lt. Shaw's intent in retaliating against Sgt. Hollister included a desire
25
o paint plaintiff as an officer who could not be trusted by fellow officers and could not follow
26
rders, even though Shaw knew that Sgt. Hollister had been the subject of an 1A investigation
27
fter he had followed orders to cover up the detention of an SDPD officer who had been detained
28
t a DUI checkpoint. Lt. Shaw knew that Sgt. Hollister had been cleared because the 1A
Complaint For Retaliation and Penalties
3
1 nvestigation had confirmed he was following orders from SDPD Command when he allowed the
2
unk-driving officer to go free. Given Sgt. Hollister's undeniable allegiance to his fellow
fficers and the command, when Lt. Shaw attempted to paint Sgt. Hollister as someone who did
ot have his fellow officers' backs and would not follow orders, he was maliciously attempting
6
7
rovides:
(a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer,
shall not make, adopt, or enforce any mle, regulation, or policy
preventing an employee from disclosing information to a
government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority
over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to
investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or
from providing information to, or testifying before, any public
body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the
employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information
discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or
noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation,
regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the
employee's job duties.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(c)
An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the
employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to
participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or
federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local,
state, or federal rule or regulation.
22
23
24
25
26
12.
As a legal result of defendants' retaliation, Sgt. Hollister has suffered, and will
27 II
28 II
Comp amt For Retaliation and Penalties
4
2
3
13.
14.
5 He brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and other current or former employees of the
6
ity based upon the Labor Code violations alleged in this Complaint.
15.
Pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code 2699, Sgt. Hollister is entitled to be awarded twenty-
ve percent (25%) of all penalties due under Califomia law, plus interest and attomey's fees and
osts.
10
11
16.
The Court should award seventy-five percent (75%) of all penalties due under
12
13
14
THEREFORE, plaintiff Danny Hollister requests a judgment against defendants The City
f San Diego, and Does 1 through 20 for:
15
a.
16
b.
17
c.
18
d.
Costs of suit;
19
e.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint For Retaliation and Penalties
5
RM.S.D.
2016 APR 28 PM 3: 5'
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
(FOR DAMAGES TO PERSONS OR PERSONAL PROPERTY)
Present claim by personal delivery or mail to the City of San Diego, Risk Management Dept.,
1200 Third Ave., Suite 1000, San Diego, CA 92101.
Received via:
TIMESTAMP
D U.S. Mail
D ~ter-Office Mail
t:l Over-the-Counter
13)\V\
FILE N o . - - - - - -
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, the City of San Diego, California
I, Sgt. Danny Hollister
, hereby make a claim against the City of San Diego and make the
following statements in support of the claim:
1.
CLAIMANT INFORMATION
a.
b.
2.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
--~----------
Date of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim: 4/8/16
-----
b.
Time of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim: 11:38 a.m.
c.
RM-9 (Rev. 12-10) This information is available in alternative formats upon request
EXHIBIT 1
d.
3.
DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM
a.
b.
The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the claimant's injury,
damage, or loss, if known, are: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
See Attachment
c.
Please provide any additional information that might be helpful in considering your
claim, including names of witnesses, treating physicians, and hospitals: _ _ __
See Attachment
e.
Please attach and/or provide any additional information that may be helpful in considering
your claim including proof of damages such as invoices, receipts, and estimates.
WARNING: It is a criminal offense to file a false claim (Cal. Penal Code 72).
I have read the matters and statements made in the above claim and I know the same to be true of my
own knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon information or belief and as to such matters, I
believe the same to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that t e regoing is true and correct.
Dated: 4/28/16
Limited civil cases are discussed in California Code of Civil Procedure 85.
RM-9 (Rev. 12-10) This information is available in alternative formats upon request
On AprilS, 2016, Sgt. Hollister sent an email to San Diego Police Department ("SDPD") Chief
Shelley Zimmerman regarding his belief that the City of San Diego ("City") was violating law
(and placing lives at risk) by continuing to employ the use of police motorcades. Sgt. Hollister
further made clear that he was being forced to violate the law and Department Policy in that
regard. (Enclosed is a copy of Sgt. Hollister's email, with attachments\ and is adopted by
reference and incorporated into this claim. Also adopted/incorporated is the enclosed2 PAGA
letter sent on behalf of Sgt. Hollister dated 4/28/16.)
A few days after the email, Sgt. Hollister's supervisor, Lt. Steven Shaw, confi-onted Sgt.
Hollister, and was visibly upset. Lt. Shaw told Sgt. Hollister that he had been so angry with Sgt.
Hollister that he had not been able to speak with him until then. Lt. Shaw chastised Sgt. Hollister
and threatened his career with SDPD, stating, "we are no longer on the same page" and "you are
no longer part of the unified front." Lt. Shaw informed Sgt. Hollister that he no longer wanted
him on the Motor Training Staff, which would result in financial losses. Shortly thereafter, Lt.
Shaw removed Sgt. Hollister from certain training activities.
By doing so, the City and SDPD retaliated against Sgt. Hollister in violation of section II 02.5.
As a result, Sgt. Hollister is entitled to compensatory, economic and non-economic damages, as
well as attorney's fees, penalties, and costs.
A paragraph from the doc\llllent entitled, "Motorcade memo," has been deleted/redacted from the
accompanying memo. The original memo received by connsel (electronically), without redaction, has been
destroyed. The only "Motorcade memo" in the possession of counsel is the redacted version. The paragraph that
was deleted was examined no more than to ascertain that it appeared to contain privileged material. This footnote is
intended to provide notice to the City and its attorneys that counsel had received (but has now destroyed) materials
that appear to be privileged. See, State Comp. Ins. Fundv. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644.
2
By including the PAGA letter in this claim, Sgt. Hollister complies with the notice provision of Labor
Code 2699.3(a)(l).
subject to a "30 day" Suspension-300 hours. On the heels of that directive, we are now told
that we will follow the orders via the chain of command and engage in motorcade training on
public roadways and conduct actual motorcades, which will cause us to violate our own policies,
procedures and the laws that govern all of us which we have sworn to up hold. We are now, as
a Unit and a Department, in a very bad place.
I have attached the following supporting documents:
Memo from Lt. Shaw to Capt. Ramos dated February 29, 2016
Email from LAPD Motor Lt. Manual Romeral dated February 3, 2016
Excerpts from DP 1.13
California Vehicle Code 21057 and California Government Code 8558
Sincerely,
Dan Hollister
lead Motorcycle Training Sergeant
4 attachments
I{ID
Motorcade menio.Shaw.docx
50K
'[) LAPD.21057email.pdf
45K
ffiiTh DP 1.13 Emergency Vehicle Operations.docx
'l:tJ 12K
'[) 21057cvc.8558govcode.pdf
497K
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Formal Motorcades
Formal motorcades are a specialized function that the San Diego Police Department's Motorcycle Unit
has traditionally handled. The use of a formal motorcade is typically reserved for the President of the
United States or other high ranking dignitary. The SDPD Motorcycle Operations Manual, Section 8.2,
states: The S.D.P.D. shall provide motorcade and protective security assistance within its area of
responsibility, consistent with available resources.
The Motor Unit takes great pride and honor in participating and providing motorcades. Although the
Motor Unit would like to continue the ability to provide a motorcade service, concern has arisen over
the California Vehicle Codes restrictions on motorcades, liability for the police department and officers
when participating in a motorcade event, and the ability to conduct formal motorcade training.
California Vehicle Code Section 21057 states, in part: Every police and traffic officer is hereby expressly
prohibited from using a siren or driving at an illegal speed when serving as an escort of any vehicle,
except when the escort or conveyance is furnished for the preservation of life.
Although there are many different personal interpretations of Section 21057, there has been no legal
interpretation of this section and how it relates to our motorcade policy and procedures. With the
exception of the California Highway Patrol, many police agencies throughout the state have
discontinued providing motorcades because of Section 21057. The Los Angeles Police Department
Motor Unit discontinued formal motorcades due to Section 21057 and now only provides escorts
(funerals, special events, etc.) which are slower and do not require taking over intersections when there
is a red signal. We also currently run escorts in this manner and therefore do not conflict with Section
21057 when it comes to escorts.
Page2
To: joseph Ramos, Captain, Traffic Division
Date: February 29, 2016
Given this information, and baring a policy call by the Chief to continue formal motorcades, I
recommend we suspend formal motorcades until a legislative amendment can be made to the California
Vehicle Code providing a more definitive explanation and guidelines on whom, how, and when
motorcades can be conducted. It is my understanding that the LAPD is in the beginning stages of this
process. We have also spoken to POA Attorney Mike Fender and he has agreed to help with this
legislative proposal.
Burlison, Robert
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rob:
Our Department policy prohibits us from taking the intersection on a red light (i.e., motorcade mode). 'NQW, we're are
only allowed to take the intersections on a green and then we hold onto the Intersection for traffic control purposes
(i.e., escort mode).
After Hawthorne Police Department (PD) Motor Officer Leonard Luna was killed on July 10,2013, during a joint funeral
escort with another agency, we were approached by the CHP with concerns that the California Vehicle Code (CVC) dtrbS
not protect law enforcement agencies for motor escorts (i.e., funerals, parades, VIPs, motorcycle rallies, etc.). There are
exceptions, but they're very limited to national emergencys, etc. Based on that meeting, we Instituted <l moratorium on
"motorcades." Now, we just run "escorts," which are slower and we don't take the intersections when the light is red.
Additionally, to stay within the CVC, our escort motors that are leap fragging do so by staying within the posted speed
limit. Therefore, we escort the "package" at slower speed. This has worked fine for us since funeral details and bicycle
rallies are typically slower paced. If we're approaching an intersection that's in a red phase, we simply slow down the
speed of the package until the light turns green and our escort motors can take control of the intersection.
After the CHP meeting, we Were under the impression that they (CHP) were going to tal<e the lead to modify the eve
through the legislative process. Unfortunately, we found out later the CHP decided notto do so due to conflict of
interest concerns (i.e., they're a State agency). Therefore, in January 2015, I submitted documentation through our
Department to legistlatively amend the eve (i.e., I'm at home, so I don"t recall the two eve sections). Last week before
my surgery, I made some Inquiries as I never heard back as to the status on what I had submitted. We have a lenghty
chain of command approval process and ultimately our Chelf of Pollee has to make the final decision. If he approves It,
then we have to get City Hall foll<s to buy into our legislative proposal and then the City has to find a Sacramento
legislator to sponsor our proposal.
Rob, hope this information help. If you have more questions, please call me at, (213) 716-9597. Be safe.
Manny Romeral, Lieutenant
LAPD- Motors
Emergency Operations Division
100 West 1st Street, Room #469
Los Angeles, CA 90012
DP 1.13
I. PURPOSE
This Depmtment procedure complies with existing law to reduce the potential for death
or injury arising fiom emergency vehicle operation.
E. 21056 CVC- states that the exemption of Section 21055 CVC does not relieve the
driver of an emergency vehicle fium the duty to DRNE WITH DUE REGARD
FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS using the highway.
1. The effect of21056 CVC is to establish that emergency vehicle operators
are NOT protected when their unreasonable or negligent acts of driving
imperil others.
2. Officers can be held liable in criminal or civil actions for deaths, injmies
or damages caused by negligent emergency vehicle operation.
Hollister, Danny
FrQrn:
Sent:
Tq:
Subject:
.21057~
at an illegal speed when serving as an escort ofariyvehicle, except when the escort or
conveyance is furnished for the preserVc:ttion of life or When expediting movements of
supplies and personnel for any federal, st<:Jte, or local governmental agency during a
national emergency, or state of war emergency, or state of emergency, or local
emergency as defined in Section 85/?8 of the Government Code.
.
(Amended by Stats. 1971, Ch.
131.
city and county, or city, caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm,
epidemic, riot, drought, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or
disease, the Governor's warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an
earthquake, or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy,
which areor are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and
facilities of that political subdivision and require the combined forces of other political
subdivisions to combat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe
energy shortage requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority vested in the
California Public Utilities Commission.
'
(Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 16, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2008.)
Re:
Daniel M. Gilleon
cc:
subject to a "30 day" Suspension-300 hours. On the heels of that directive, we are now told
that we will follow the orders via the chain of command and engage in motorcade training on
public roadways and c'onduct actual motorcades, which will cause us to violate our own policies,
procedures and the laws that govern all of us which we have sworn to up hold. We are now, as
a Unit and a Department, in a very bad place.
I have attached the following supporting documents:
Memo from Lt. Shaw to Capt. Ramos dated February 29, 2016
Email from LAPD Motor Lt. Manual Romeral dated February 3, 2016
Excerpts from DP 1.13
California Vehicle Code 21057 and California Government Code 8558
Sin~erely,
Dan Hollister
lead Motorcycle Training Sergeant
4 attachments
~ LAPD.21057email.pdf
45K
,... DP 1.13 Emergency Vehicle Operations.d.ocx
om
12K
~ 21057cvc.8558govcode.pdf
497K