City of Los Angeles to Pay Officer $4 Million in Bias Case

March 25th, 2004

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL, JAPANESE AMERICANS, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL SETTLEMENTS JAPANESE AMERICANS

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

By Richard Winton and Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

A Japanese American police officer will receive $4 million after the Los Angeles City Council

decided Wednesday to settle rather than pursue an appeal of a jury's finding that he was the victim of

on-the-job racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Veteran Richard Nagatoshi had won one of the largest employment discrimination judgments ever

against the Los Angeles Police Department.

Nagatoshi, still a member of the LAPD, said Wednesday that he was pleased with the outcome but

could not comment further. "He endured many years of an attack on his dignity as a person, and he

refused to let them win. He prevailed and was completely vindicated. It was a matter of honor," said

his attorney, Matthew McNicholas.

The alleged discriminatory acts occurred between 1996 and 1998 when Nagatoshi was assigned to the

LAPD's canine unit as a dog handler. He filed a discrimination claim with the state in 2001. His

attorney said he suffered retaliation that same year. After he filed that claim, in one incident

Nagatoshi's fellow officers in the K-9 unit refused to respond to his backup calls during a 2 1/2-hour

car chase, McNicholas said.

In May 2001 Nagatoshi received an e-mail stating, "You will pay for your treachery," according to

court papers. A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury unanimously found the city liable last year

and awarded Nagatoshi $591,000 for lost wages and $3 million for general noneconomic damages for

loss of value to his career.

The court later added attorney fees to the award, bringing the judgment to more than $4.1 million.

Under the settlement, the city will pay $4 million. Council members expressed concern about the

rising costs of losing lawsuits against the LAPD, and the need for change.

"I continue to be concerned about the escalating liability in this department," said Councilman

Antonio Villaraigosa. "While I realize these cases are from some years back, I've made it clear that

we're going to have to institute some reforms to change the environment and reduce our liability."

Villaraigosa said there were a "disproportionate number of claims of a harassive environment and then

retaliation for complaining about that kind of environment, and that's what concerns me."

"In a difficult budget year, it's excruciating," said Councilman Eric Garcetti. "But many times, it's

what you have to do to clean up the past and to turn around how the city treats its employees and the

population at large." It is the second employment discrimination settlement involving the LAPD

canine unit and Asian American officers this year.

In February, the council approved a $1.2-million settlement with former Officer Mark Tico for alleged

discrimination and harassment. Nagatoshi, 41, married with two children, graduated from the Police

Academy in 1985 and was selected for the canine unit in 1993. After two years in the unit, all of the

dog handlers, including Nagatoshi, spoke out against their supervisors.

Later, a sergeant made a derogatory remark about an Asian American driver during a K-9 unit event

and forced Nagatoshi to sign a complaint form written in Korean, although he is not Korean, as his

supervisors laughed, according to court records. Over the next several months, supervisors shunned

him and investigated him for two alleged excessive-force complaints, which were dismissed,

according to the officer's attorney.

Nagatoshi transferred to the Armory, where he distributes supplies, in November 2000, after filing his

suit. In that time, someone posted copies of his complaint in the K-9 unit offices and stuffed pink

women's underwear into his work mailbox, court papers said.

While finding that the city could be sued, the trial judge last year dismissed allegations against the

individual officers named in the original lawsuit on grounds of the statute of limitations. Some of

those officers remain with the department.