Rush v. City of Oakland CA1/1

I. BACKGROUND

Rush was hired as a police officer by OPD in June 2000, and terminated from her employment in April 2009. She sued OPD and the City in October 2009, alleging her gender was a motivating reason for her termination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.; FEHA). Defendants moved successfully for summary judgment in 2011, and this timely appeal followed. In their motion for summary judgment, defendants alleged the following facts were undisputed: In September 2006, Rush became a problem-solving officer in district 5 (PSO 5), a position she held until her termination. In the summer of 2008, Rush was the subject of multiple internal affairs division (IAD) investigations begun in response to citizen complaints about search warrants executed at their homes. During these investigations, it was discovered Rush had submitted search warrant affidavits containing untruthful information. Rush’s affidavits falsely asserted suspected narcotics obtained during what is known as an ―X buy‖ had been tested by the OPD’s crime lab when, in fact, they had not been tested.1 The scope of the IAD investigation expanded when it was…