Vargas

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs,1 two former City of Long Beach (the City) police officers, appeal from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment on their claims against the City for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 (section 1102.5) and retaliation under FEHA.2 According to plaintiffs, the trial court erred when it: excluded evidence under the doctrine of issue preclusion; determined the City’s motion on their section 1102.5 claim under the wrong legal standard; and concluded that there were no triable issues of fact on their two claims. We affirm.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiffs’ Prior Litigation

Vargas began his employment as a police officer for the City in 1994, and Orduno began his employment as an officer in 1999. In 1997, 2004, and 2006, Vargas sued the City for FEHA violations. In August 2014 and April 2015, Vargas and Orduno sued the City for FEHA and Labor Code violations, and those two cases were consolidated (consolidated action) and resolved against plaintiffs on summary judgment. Finally, on March 28,

Plaintiffs are Alberto Vargas and Pablo Orduno.

FEHA is an…