The Votes Are In!
2024 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → Home / Neighborhood / LA County /
Ruling sets Gascón critic’s retaliation lawsuit for trial
LA County Feb 16, 2023
LA County District Attorney George Gascón, shown here in 2010 when he was San Francisco's police chief. | Photo courtesy of Shawn Calhoun/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)
by
share with
A judge has denied a motion by attorneys for Los Angeles County to dismiss a veteran prosecutor’s lawsuit in which she alleges she has been denied important positions in retaliation for complaining about directives set forth after the 2020 election of District Attorney George Gascón.
The ruling Wednesday by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry A. Green clears the way for a jury trial of Deputy District Attorney Shawn Randolph’s suit against the county to begin Thursday. County lawyers maintained in their court papers seeking dismissal of her case that the plaintiff “was not disclosing any previously unknown or hidden conduct, practice or policy, but only her view that the known policy was not lawful,” and that therefore her claim to be a whistleblower was unsupported by the evidence.
“That plaintiff views a publicly known policy as unlawful is not a disclosure protected by law,” county attorneys stated in their court papers.
Filed in October 2021, Randolph’s complaint states that she previously was the head prosecutor in charge of the District Attorney’s Office’s Juvenile Division, in which she supervised about 50 lawyers and 50 civilian workers.
But according to Randolph’s suit, upon being sworn into office on Dec. 7, 2020, Gascón released numerous directives, including a policy that, among other things, mandated that Randolph use alternative theories of prosecution that minimized a juvenile’s criminal conduct, no matter how violent the offenses.
“In essence, plaintiff was directed not to file strike offenses against juveniles and this directive creates a false and misleading description to the court of the crimes that were actually committed,” the suit states.
If a 16- or 17-year-old juvenile robbed a victim by putting a gun to the victim’s head, Randolph could not prosecute the juvenile for robbery because that is a strike offense, the suit states. Randolph was directed to instead file against the juvenile for a lesser crime such as assault by using force that is likely to cause great bodily injury, according to the suit.
The ability of a prosecutor to file a strike offense such as robbery has a deterrent effect because if the juvenile commits another serious or violent felony as an adult, his or her sentence can be doubled, the suit states.
The directive also mandated that Randolph could not file any enhancements for egregious violent conduct, according to the suit.
Randolph repeatedly disclosed to her superiors that juvenile petitions made under Gascón’s policy were not truthful and that filing such petitions before a court violates the ethical and statutory duties of a prosecutor, the suit states.
Randolph additionally complained that under Gascón’s directive, violent juvenile murderers could not be tried as adults and that Gascón violated the law by refusing to permit the victims’ family any input into the decision not to try them as adults, the suit states.
In February 2021, Randolph was transferred to the parole division, a “dead-end position for a head deputy,” and denied transfers to head the District Attorney’s branch offices in Torrance and Long Beach Superior Courts even though she was the most qualified applicant for each position, the suit states.
Randolph seeks damages for lost earnings and emotional distress.
In their court papers, county attorneys state that the transfer did not result in a demotion of Randolph and that she kept the same salary.
“Plaintiff has not sought or received any medical care or treatment for her purported emotional damages,” county attorneys argue in their court papers. “Plaintiff remained a head deputy and maintained the same pay she received before her transfer. In addition, plaintiff has not and cannot show that she suffered embarrassment.”
More from LA County
