CBS News and LA Times Report on Claims Against LAPD for Discrimination and Retaliation; Officer Alleges She Was Stalked by Assistant Chief Alfred Labrada
Partner Matthew McNicholas is representing a Los Angeles Police Department officer in her claims against the City of Los Angeles and LAPD for discrimination and retaliation after Assistant Chief Alfred Labrada allegedly stalked her. The officer further alleges that her complaint was leaked out of Internal Affairs resulting in more harassment.
In an interview with CBS News, McNicholas commented, “The LAPD again failed one of their own and derailed her career — victimizing her all over again.”
In a story with Los Angeles Times, he explained: “It’s entirely inappropriate for an assistant chief in LAPD to place what is in effect an electronic dog collar on a simple police officer that he was in a romantic relationship with.”
McNicholas added that the officer began receiving text messages from colleagues shortly after she reported Labrada to Internal Affairs. “How does that happen? She didn’t tell anybody else in the department. Her mother didn’t tell anyone else in the department. So, it is our belief that it was leaked,” he said.
Read the CBS News story here.
LOS ANGELES (December 5, 2023) – Trial law firm McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP filed a governmental claim with the City and a claim with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing against the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) on behalf of an LAPD officer who alleges she was harassed by a Commanding Officer when he placed a physical tracker on her car, and then discriminated against and retaliated against her after filing a report that she was being stalked by the Commanding Officer. Despite assurances that her complaint and internal investigations would be kept confidential, the Plaintiff was quickly subjected to harassment as word of the complaint to IA had leaked around the department and had to take medical leave.
“Regardless of the former romantic relationship between my client and Chief Labrada, surreptitiously tracking someone’s location is illegal – you can’t put an electronic dog collar on a person. As a result of her reporting the unlawful tracking, she has been subjected to repeated victim blaming and retaliation by the officers in the Department,” said Matthew McNicholas, Partner at McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP. “The LAPD again failed one of their own and derailed her career — victimizing her all over again.”
Within days of filing what should have been a confidential complaint with IA, the Plaintiff began receiving text messages from colleagues asking if the rumors that Labrada had stalked her were true. This information could only have come from Internal Affairs, who assured the Plaintiff that they would keep the investigation masked. Due to the significant anxiety this caused, Plaintiff had to take medical leave.
Case Background
LAPD Assistant Chief Alfred Labrada was Director of the Office of Special Operations and was considered a potential internal candidate by some to replace Chief Michael Moore. Labrada and the Plaintiff began a consensual relationship in 2017 and filed for a domestic partnership with the LAPD in 2021. Due to the toxic nature of the relationship, the Plaintiff ended the relationship in June 2023.
In September 2023, while on a trip with friends, the Plaintiff discovered an Apple Airtag in a black box attached to the undercarriage of her vehicle. The Plaintiff’s friend, who was present when it was found, scanned the Airtag and found that the serial number and owner information matched the last four digits of Labrada’s city issued cellphone. The Plaintiff filed a confidential report with the Ontario Police Department rather than the LAPD due to Labrada’s high rank within the organization. The Plaintiff then notified LAPD, as she is required to do because she had contact with an outside agency, which in this case was the filing of a police report. Shortly after the notification to the LAPD, several LAPD officers arrived at the Plaintiff’s home to gather a statement and scan the Airtag. The scan revealed that Labrada’s information had been wiped from the device, causing the Plaintiff to believe that Labrada had been almost immediately notified of her report.
During an Internal Affairs interview, the Plaintiff was continuously questioned about her relationship with Labrada and asked whether she had done something to justify the placement of the Airtag on her vehicle. The Plaintiff did not have representation during the interview, nor was she notified that she was entitled to representation during the interview, a violation of Peace Officer Bill of Rights.
Within days, rumors about the Plaintiff’s report began circulating within the LAPD despite assurances that the internal investigation would be “masked.” The Plaintiff received multiple text messages from colleagues asking her whether the rumors were true. Furthermore, despite the Plaintiff’s requests that they issue a “stay away order” against Labrada, Labrada has continuously, and on an ongoing basis, attempted to contact the Plaintiff via text message and email – a violation of the order. Due to the significant pressure and anxiety the Plaintiff was facing, she had to take medical leave.
Approximately two weeks after the Plaintiff’s initial report, a search warrant revealed that the Airtag was registered to Labrada. The LAPD then assigned Labrada home.
###
McNicholas & McNicholas, a Los Angeles-based plaintiff-trial law firm, represents clients in the areas of catastrophic personal injury, employment law, class actions, sexual abuse, and other consumer-oriented matters such as civil rights, aviation disasters, and product liability. Founded by a family of attorneys spanning three generations, McNicholas & McNicholas has been trying cases to jury verdicts on behalf of its clients for more than five decades.
McNicholas & McNicholas, LLP
10866 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90024
866-664-3055
