A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former Sheriff Alex Villanueva against Los Angeles County based on a “do not rehire” notation in his personnel file after an oversight panel said he discriminated against and harassed two county employees.
Federal The suit was filed in June Among other things, he accused the county of defaming Villanueva and violating his due process rights when officials investigated him “in secret” without giving him a chance to respond to the allegations.
County attorneys said in court filings that Villanueva had been told about the investigation and declined to be interviewed unless he was given questions in advance.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson granted the county’s request to dismiss the case, saying Villanueva had not shown how the “do not rehire” designation actually harmed him because he offered no evidence that he was denied a job because of it.
Still, Villanueva’s attorney presented the ruling as a victory, saying the judge only considered some of the former sheriff’s claims and left open the possibility that Villanueva’s legal team could refile the case — which he said they plan to do.
“We are pleased with and fully respect Judge Wilson’s order yesterday,” attorney Karney Shegerian wrote in an email to the Times. “Our client, former Sheriff Villanueva, is on the right side and we are confident the law will provide a remedy for the wrongdoings committed against him.”
Jason Tokoro, a partner at the Miller Barondess law firm who serves as outside counsel for the county, also characterized the decision as a victory.
“We appreciate the Court’s decision and that it agreed with all of our arguments in dismissing the allegations made by former Sheriff Villanueva in his lawsuit,” Tokoro said in an emailed statement. “Although he accused the County of improperly placing him on the ‘do not rehire’ list, the facts were to the contrary and for those reasons the Court dismissed the case.”
The allegations at the center of the lawsuit date back to early 2022, when Inspector General Max Huntsman accused Villanueva, who was still sheriff at the time, of conducting a “racially based attack” and “dog whistling to extremists” when he repeatedly referred to the inspector general by his exotic-sounding birth name, Max-Gustaf. Shortly after that, Villanueva accused Huntsman of also conducting a “racially based attack” and “dog whistling to extremists.” Genocide denialHe provided no evidence to support this claim, and Huntsman denied it.
Around the same time that Huntsman filed her complaint, Esther Lim — who was then a justice deputy to County Supervisor Hilda Solis — filed a complaint accusing Villanueva of targeting and harassing black women.
Pointing to comments the former sheriff made on a Facebook livestream, Lim accused him of age-based discrimination and harassment of Asian women.
According to the county, Villanueva was notified in June 2022 that he was the subject of an investigation by the department’s internal affairs bureau. A few weeks later, an investigator interviewed Huntsman and Lim.
after this, Villanueva alleged in court documentsThe case was shelved because the Internal Affairs Bureau determined he had not violated any policies. He said the investigation was not reopened until late 2023, after he was removed from his position as sheriff and announced his candidacy for county supervisor.
On Sunday, a county attorney said claims that the case had gone cold turkey were false. The county’s court filings describe a case that was still active in early 2023, when Villanueva emailed an investigator in response to certified letters he sent, trying to contact him.
“I would request you to submit your questions in writing after giving a brief description of the allegations,” he wrote. According to email copies attached to court documents.When the investigator told him it was not standard practice, Villanueva questioned the approach to investigating a former sheriff, said he was “not concerned” about standard practice and said he was “very happy” to cooperate but only on his own terms.
The two corresponded via email for several weeks, after which Villanueva sent a final email to the investigator, in which he said she had “no jurisdiction” to interview him and called his conditions “unethical and unacceptable.”
The department completed its investigation and referred it to the county Equity Oversight Panel, which met last October and upheld some of the complaints in both cases, and ultimately recommended the former sheriff be ineligible for reappointment.
Villanueva said he heard nothing from the county after that about the complaints or their outcome until the Times published an article about it earlier this year. After that, according to his court filing, he contacted a former chief of the sheriff’s department, who allegedly told him the case had been put on hold and later reopened.
In the month of May, He filed a claim letter notifying the county He plans to sue for $25 million and ask officials to rescind the “do not reappoint” designation. When he filed suit in June, the complaint accused the county of defamation, intentionally causing him emotional distress and violating his rights to free speech and due process.
According to Friday’s ruling, Villanueva and his legal team have two weeks to re-file their case.
Though Lim would not comment on the outcome, Huntsman said the case highlights the need for tighter oversight of the Sheriff’s Department.
“The court’s opinion speaks for itself,” he told the Times. “The fact that Villanueva was able to suppress any response to his conduct while sheriff shows that the LASD will always need strong external scrutiny to prevent corruption.”
