Retired LAPD Sergeant Wins $4.5M in Whistleblower Retaliation Lawsuit

A Los Angeles County jury has awarded retired LAPD Sergeant Randy Rangel $4.5 million after finding the department unlawfully retaliated against him for reporting alleged overtime fraud within the Transit Services Division.

Case Name: Randy Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

Court: Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: 22STCV34806

The Background: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

Rangel, who served the LAPD for 32 years, claimed that in 2018 and 2019, he reported a fellow sergeant for billing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for overtime work that was never performed. He alleged no investigation was launched. Instead, he says his identity as the complainant was leaked—despite whistleblower confidentiality rules—triggering months of retaliation.

Alleged Retaliation: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

According to the lawsuit, Rangel was:

• Removed from his role as captain’s adjutant, a key promotional stepping stone.

• Targeted with false rumors about his personal life.

• Subjected to ongoing harassment from colleagues and superiors.

• Written up for potential discipline over a separate incident, which was eventually dismissed.

He claimed the retaliation continued even after he filed an anonymous Internal Affairs complaint in 2020, and that the hostile work environment contributed to his decision to retire in 2023.

The Verdict: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

According to court documents, the jury awarded Rangel $4.5 million in damages. (It's possible the award amount could change due to potential post-trial proceedings). In some cases, the final payout is adjusted on appeal or other post-trial proceedings. Rangel v. City of Los Angeles. It is just one of several recent suits involving the LAPD Transit Services Division. Other allegations include misconduct cover-ups, retaliation for reporting violations/wrongdoing, and discrimination. 

Why This Case Matters: Rangel v. City of Los Angeles

California law protects employees who report misconduct from retaliation, but in some cases (like Rangel v. City of Los Angeles), whistleblowers can still face serious consequences in the workplace. The verdict in this case sends a message about the significant legal and financial penalties associated with violating these essential labor law protections.

FAQ: Whistleblower Retaliation Case

Q: What was the basis of Randy Rangel’s lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles?

A: Rangel, a former Los Angeles Metro employee, alleged he was retaliated against after reporting an overtime fraud scheme involving other employees.

Q: Which court heard this case?

A: The case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV34806.

Q: What was the outcome of the trial?

A: The jury awarded Rangel $4.5 million in damages for retaliation, including lost wages and emotional distress.

Q: Why is this case significant?

A: It underscores California’s strong whistleblower protections, especially for public employees who report suspected fraud or misconduct.

Q: Can the City of Los Angeles appeal the verdict?

A: Yes. As with most civil verdicts, the City has the right to appeal within a specified timeframe under California law.

If you have experienced workplace retaliation, please speak with an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible. Get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Claims Big Oil is to Blame for Climate Related Heatwave Death

Misti Leon made a historic move when she filed a wrongful death lawsuit targeting major fossil fuel companies. Leon's complaint alleges that the companies' actions and active climate deception directly contributed to her mother's death during a record-breaking 2021 heat dome in the Pacific Northwest. Leon's case marks a new frontier in climate accountability litigation.

Case: Misti Leon v. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and the BP-managed subsidiary Olympic Pipeline Company

Court: King County Superior Court

Case No.: 25-2-15986-8 SEA

The Plaintiff: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Misti Leon, acting as the personal representative of her mother's estate, filed this wrongful death suit following the 2021 Pacific Northwest "heat dome"—an extreme weather event scientists confirm would have been virtually impossible without human-induced climate change.

The Defendant: Leon v. ExxonMobil

The lawsuit names seven major fossil fuel companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and BP's Olympic Pipeline Company—alleging that their decades-long contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and public deception about climate risk played a direct role in her mother's fatal hyperthermia.

History of the Case: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Filed on May 29, 2025, in King County Superior Court, the suit is unprecedented—marking the first wrongful death claim in the U.S. directly linking a single death to corporate actions exacerbating the climate crisis. The complaint alleges that the 108 °F heat in Seattle that killed Juliana Leon constituted a foreseeable consequence of the defendants' knowingly deceptive actions.

The Main Question in the Case: Leon v. ExxonMobil

The central legal question is whether these fossil fuel companies can be held civilly liable under state wrongful death, public nuisance, or failure-to-warn claims for creating and hiding the dangers of climate change that caused the fatal heatwave.

FAQ: Leon v. ExxonMobil

Q: Is this the first wrongful death lawsuit connected to climate change?

A: Yes—it is the first known U.S. wrongful death claim against fossil fuel companies directly attributing one individual's death to the industry's climate impact.

Q: What are the plaintiff's main legal claims against the defendants?

A: The plaintiff's main allegations in the case are wrongdul death, public nuisance, and failure to warn. Leon alleges that the companies knew of deadly climate risks, but misled consumers regardig the issues and hindered efforts to mitigate.

Q: Does the case rely on scientific attribution of the heatwave to climate change?

A: Yes. Scientific studies cited in the complaint support the claim that the June 2021 heat dome, which reached record temperatures, would have been virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Parents Claim Addictive Algorithms Caused Their Child's Death: Nazario v. ByteDance

A New York Supreme Court complaint (Index No. 151540/2024) accuses TikTok's parent, ByteDance, and related social-media firms of designing "addictive" features that target minors, promote dangerous challenges, and allegedly caused a boy's death.

The Case: Norma Nazario v. ByteDance Ltd. et al.

The Court: NY Supreme Court

The Case No. 151540/2024

The Plaintiff: Nazario v. ByteDance

Norma Nazario, individually and as representative of her late child Zackery's estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit contending that the platforms exploited children's neuro-vulnerabilities, lured Zackery into compulsive use, and pushed self-harm content that led directly to his fatal actions.

The Defendant: Nazario v. ByteDance

According to the complaint, the defendant, ByteDance (and other affiliated social media platforms/apps):

• Optimize apps for "retention" and "time spent," while valuing engagement over safety.

• Actively nudge minors to create content or "go live" with content.

• Algorithmically amplify dangerous challenges while withholding adequate warnings.

The Case: Nazario v. ByteDance

The case was put before the New York Supreme Court and listed multiple allegations:

• Defendants deliberately leverage the neuro-developmental vulnerabilities of minor users to "optimize" time spent and retention results.

• Algorithms pushed the plaintiff's son, Zackery, toward "exceedingly dangerous challenges and videos," which directly caused the child's fatal actions.

• Defendants knew their products were addictive, failed to redesign or provide adequate warnings, and even "co-created" content through prompts, music curation, and "go live" nudges.

The Main Question: Nazario v. ByteDance

Did ByteDance's product designs, recommendation algorithms, and failure to warn or safeguard young users create a defective, deceptively marketed product that caused Zackery's death—and, if so, what liability attaches under New York tort and consumer-protection law?

FAQ: Nazario v. ByteDance

Q: What makes the suit a product liability case rather than simple negligence?

A: The complaint frames TikTok as a consumer product with design defects (addictive features, dangerous content amplification) and inadequate warnings, invoking strict liability principles normally applied to physical goods.

Q: How do deceptive-practice claims (GBL §§ 349 & 350) fit in?

A: Nazario says defendants misrepresented TikTok's safety, luring families to trust a platform allegedly engineered to maximize engagement at the expense of minors' mental and physical health.

Q: What "dangerous challenges" are cited?

A: While specific titles are under seal, the pleading says the For You Page pushed viral stunts encouraging self-harm and risky behavior that Zackery ultimately attempted.

Q: Could Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shield the defendants?

A: Plaintiffs argue the platforms acted as designers and co-creators of content through algorithmic amplification, prompts, and curated music, placing their claims within the product-liability sphere where Section 230 immunity is narrower.

Q: What happens next procedurally?

A: The court will rule on the pending motion (MS #3). If claims survive, discovery will address internal design documents, safety studies, and data on under-18 engagement, potentially informing settlement or trial.

If you need to file a wrongful death lawsuit, and you have questions, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Parents Claim Child's IEP was Ignored Leading to the Student's Death: Estate of Kody Townsend v. CPS

The parents of 10-year-old Kody Townsend have sued the public school system in Cook County Circuit Court (Case No. 2025L007034), alleging the school's staff ignored their son's seizure-care plans, left him unsupervised at lunch, and mishandled the resulting medical emergency, causing his death.

Estate of Kody Townsend v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

Court: Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court

Case No.: 2025L007034

The Plaintiffs: Townsend v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Chicago Public Schools)

The Estate of Kody Townsend, through parents Travis Townsend and Lakeisha Jones-Townsend, seeks damages for wrongful death. Kody had Lennox-Gastaut seizure disorder and developmental delays; his Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Seizure Action Plan required constant adult supervision (especially while eating), and included step-by-step emergency protocols.

The Defendant: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The defendant, Chicago Public Schools, operates Henry R. Clissold Elementary, where Kody was enrolled as a student. The lawsuit contends district employees willfully ignored written medical directives and then failed to provide (or relay to paramedics) the care specified in those directives.

The Case: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

The Townsend family listed claims of negligence and wrongful death based on willful and wanton misconduct. They also included more details regarding their key allegations, including:

• Unsupervised Meal: On Oct 18, 2024, Kody ate without the required one-to-one monitor as specified in his IEP, suffered a seizure, choked on food, and went into cardiac arrest.

• 9 Minute Delay: Staff waited about nine minutes before attempting the first seizure-response step; when that failed, they neither advanced to the next step nor called 911 promptly.

• Airway Oversight: Staff failed to inform arriving EMS that Kody's airway was obstructed, resulting in a delay in life-saving care.

• Known Risk: Personnel were fully aware (from the IEP and Seizure Action Plan) of Kody's heightened danger during meals, yet disregarded those documents.

The wrongful death lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and systemic changes to enforce IEP compliance throughout the district.

The Main Question: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Did Chicago Public Schools act with reckless disregard by ignoring Kody Townsend's documented need for meal-time supervision and by failing to follow or communicate seizure protocols, thereby causing his fatal cardiac arrest?

FAQ: Townsend v. Chicago Public Schools

Q: What specific protections did Kody's IEP and Seizure Action Plan mandate?

A: Continuous adult supervision during meals, step-wise seizure-response procedures (two distinct interventions), and immediate EMS notification if the first step failed.

Q: How long did the staff wait before taking action?

A: The complaint says approximately nine minutes elapsed before any seizure protocol was attempted, well beyond best-practice response times for airway obstruction and seizures.

Q: Why is failure to tell EMS about the blocked airway significant?

A: Clearing the airway is the first priority in this type of medical emergency. Failing to advise paramedics that an airway is blocked risks wasting critical minutes on ineffective interventions.

Q: The parents claimed "willful and wanton" misconduct; what standard must be met to prove this type of claim?

A: To prove a "willful and wanton" misconduct claim, they must show that the school staff knew about Kody's health risks, and consciously disregarded the information. If the plaintiffs can prove the school staff knew and disregarded Kody's condition/associated health risks, it becomes more than merely an act of negligence.

Q: Could this lawsuit lead to broader policy changes?

A: Yes. Wrongful-death suits often push districts to tighten IEP enforcement, retrain staff on medical plans, and adopt stricter emergency-response protocols.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable wrongful death attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Plantation Slur Case: Pierce v. Tesla Settlement

In Pierce v. Tesla Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 22-03177), a Black production-line worker alleging pervasive racial harassment at Tesla’s Fremont factory has reached an undisclosed settlement with the automaker after court-ordered mediation.

The Case: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

The Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

The Case No.: 22-03177

The Plaintiff: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Raina Pierce, who installed door latches at the Fremont, California facility, said she endured daily racial slurs—both spoken and written on walls and bathroom stalls—and was disciplined for conduct tolerated in non-Black colleagues. A supervisor allegedly greeted crews with phrases like “welcome to the plantation.”

The Defendant: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Tesla Inc. operates the Fremont assembly plant where Pierce worked. While the company denies wrongdoing, it has faced multiple race-bias suits from current and former employees, including the high-profile Diaz verdicts and a pending class action on behalf of thousands of Black workers.

The Case: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

The plaintiffs included multiple claims alleging they experienced a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation; all violating federal and California labor law. The key allegations included in the case details were racial epithets and graffiti visible thoruhgout the factory, a manager that consistently used racially charged greetings, and unequal disciplinary actions when compared to non-Black employee disciplinary actions.

A Timeline of the Case Milestones: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

May 2022: the complaint was filed in federal court.

Discovery revealing corroboratig witness statements.

April 17, 2025: Involved parties notified the court the mediator's proposal was accepted. The terms of the agreement remain confidential (pending final paperwork).

The Main Question: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Did Tesla permit a racially hostile environment and unequal discipline practices at its Fremont plant, thereby violating civil rights laws, and, if so, what compensation or reforms were warranted? The confidential settlement ends the litigation without a trial.

FAQ: Pierce v Tesla Inc et al

Q: What did Pierce allege was the worst conduct?

A: She cited a supervisor’s “plantation/slave house” greetings, ubiquitous racist graffiti, and harsher discipline than non-Black peers.

Q: Are the settlement terms public?

A: No. The parties agreed to keep monetary amounts and any non-financial provisions confidential.

Q: Does settlement mean Tesla admitted guilt?

A: Typically, private settlements include no admission of liability; they merely resolve the claims.

If you are experiencing workplace discrimination and need to talk about filing a California lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Chair Denied, $11 M Verdict: Roque v. Octapharma

A San Diego County jury awarded more than $11 million to a 74-year-old medical screener who claimed that Octapharma Plasma, Inc. refused a simple accommodation (a chair for her back pain) and then fired her due to her age.

The Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2021-00020936-CU-WT-CTL

The Plaintiff: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Raquel Roque (age 74) worked as a medical screener at an Octapharma plasma-donation center. She suffered chronic back pain and repeatedly asked to sit while conducting screenings.

The Defendant: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Octapharma Plasma, Inc. operates plasma-collection centers nationwide and sets the on-site procedures and working conditions for staff who conduct donor eligibility screenings.

The Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Claims: failure to accommodate a disability, disability discrimination, age discrimination, and wrongful termination under California’s FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act).

Key Allegations: There were 2 key allegations in the case, 1) Octapharma denied Roque's request for a chair forcing her to stand for extended shifts, and 2) When Roque persisted, she was terminated (the company cited performance, but she alleged it was age bias)

The Main Question in the Case: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Did Octapharma Plasma unlawfully refuse a reasonable accommodation (a chair) and terminate Roque because of her age, warranting compensatory and punitive damages under FEHA?

FAQ: Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.

Q: Is providing a chair considered a reasonable accommodation?

A: Yes. Under FEHA (and the ADA), an employer must offer adjustments, such as seating, that enable an employee with a medical condition to perform essential job functions, unless the change causes undue hardship.

Q: Does the absence of economic loss usually limit verdicts?

A: Not in California. Juries can—and frequently do—assign substantial noneconomic and punitive damages even when wage loss is minimal or nonexistent.

Q: What takeaway does this verdict offer employers?

A: Swiftly evaluate and, if feasible, grant minor accommodations; document the process; and ensure performance issues are legitimate and well-supported before terminating protected workers.

If you are experiencing workplace discrimination and need to talk about filing a California lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Injury, Leave & Demotion: Miller v. CDCR Disability Case

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, has affirmed summary judgment for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Miller v. CDCR (Case No. E081230), holding that the agency lawfully placed an injured correctional officer on unpaid leave after she could no longer perform the essential duties of her job.

The Case: Miller v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

The Court: California Fourth Appellate District Division Two

The Case No.: E081230 (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2000221)

The Plaintiff: Miller v. CDCR

Maria Miller, a correctional officer injured in a 2016 slip-and-fall, exhausted workers' comp benefits by 2018. Facing permanent medical restrictions (that were later compounded by a disclosed mental-health condition), she declined CDCR's offer of a "medical demotion" to a lighter-duty position and remained on unpaid leave. In 2020, she filed a lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The Defendant: Miller v. CDCR

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Miller's employer, is responsible for ensuring correctional-facility security while accommodating employees' disabilities in compliance with FEHA.

The Case: Miller v. CDCR

Claims: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.

Trial Court (Riverside County): Granted summary judgment for CDCR, finding Miller could not perform essential correctional-officer functions and that CDCR offered reasonable accommodations she refused.

Court of Appeal Ruling: Affirmed.

Key points: An employer may take adverse action when an employee's disability renders it impossible to perform essential duties.

CDCR met its burden by offering a medical demotion; disability retirement is not a reasonable accommodation under FEHA. Even if the interactive process was imperfect, liability requires proof that a feasible accommodation existed and was withheld.

The Main Questions in the Case: Miller v. CDCR

When an employee's permanent medical restrictions prevent them from performing essential job functions, can an employer satisfy the FEHA by offering alternative positions, and by doing so, can they avoid liability? Does it change the situation if the employee refuses the alternate position and alleges flaws in the interactive process? After considering these essential questions, the appellate court ruled in favor of CDCR.

FAQ: Miller v. CDCR

Q: Why wasn't disability retirement considered a reasonable accommodation?

A: FEHA defines a reasonable accommodation as a workplace adjustment enabling the employee to perform the job, whereas disability retirement removes the employee from the workforce altogether, contrary to FEHA's goal of keeping employees working when possible.

Q: Does an employer's imperfect interactive process automatically create liability?

A: No. An employee must demonstrate a specific, objectively available accommodation that the employer failed to provide; absent that, procedural flaws alone are insufficient.

Q: What is a "medical demotion," and is it legal?

A: A medical demotion reassigns an employee to a lower-level role compatible with medical restrictions, often with reinstatement rights if health improves. Courts view it as a legitimate accommodation when higher-level duties can't be performed.

Q: Can failure to accommodate double as disability discrimination?

A: Not necessarily. An employer may be liable for failing to accommodate without being liable for discrimination if no adverse employment action stems from bias.

Q: What lessons does this case offer California employers?

A: Document essential job functions, explore all viable accommodations—including reassignment—and remember that FEHA liability hinges on whether a workable accommodation existed, not on perfection in the dialogue.

If you have questions about filing a workplace discrimination complaint, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to help in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.