Avila v. Los Angeles Police Department

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONARD AVILA, No. 12-55931 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:11-cv-01326-

SJO-FMO

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant,

and

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; COMMANDER

STUART MAISLIN,

Defendants-Appellants.

LEONARD AVILA, No. 12-56554 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:11-cv-01326-

SJO-FMO

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant,

OPINION

and

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2014—Pasadena, California

Filed July 10, 2014

Before: Barry G. Silverman and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges, and C. Roger Vinson, Senior District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Hurwitz; Dissent by Judge Vinson

SUMMARY**

Labor Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment, after a jury trial, in favor of a police officer who claimed that the Los Angeles Police Department fired him in retaliation for testifying in a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit brought by…

Leonard Avila, a police officer, periodically worked through his lunch break but did not claim overtime. According to his commanding officer, Avila was a model officer. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), however, deemed Avila insubordinate for not claiming overtime and fired him.

Not coincidentally, that termination occurred only after Avila had testified in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit brought by fellow officer, Edward Maciel, who sought overtime pay for working through his lunch hours. Avila then *1099 brought this action, claiming that he was fired in retaliation for testifying, in violation of the FLSA anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3). The evidence at trial was that the only officers disciplined for not claiming overtime were those who testified against the LAPD in the Maciel suit, notwithstanding uncontested evidence that the practice was widespread in the LAPD.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of Avila on his FLSA anti-retaliation claim. On appeal, the City of Los Angeles and the LAPD contend that the jury was not correctly instructed. We find no reversible error and affirm.

I

In January 2008, Leonard Avila testified under…

dissenting:

This is a very troubling case that raises a number of significant legal issues. I will limit the focus of my dissent, however, to what I believe is the most serious and manifest error: the jury instructions.

This is also a very important case, for retaliation claims based on federal statutes are increasingly a major part of employment litigation in federal courts. Recent cases from the Supreme Court of the United States, see note 3 infra, have highlighted new interpretations of the causation standard in some of these cases. All parties who deal with those laws, including employers and employees, their attorneys, district judges, and trial juries, need more clarification and certainty in this area. Unfortunately, the majority’s opinion does not provide that.

I

Before turning to the jury instructions, it might be helpful to briefly discuss the nature of the testimony at issue in this case. The majority repeatedly states that Avila and two fellow officers, Romney and Anderson, were disciplined only after they testified in the Maciel litigation. See, e.g., Maj. Op. at 1098 (“[The] termination occurred only after Avila had testified in [the Maciel suit.]”); accord id.…