A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Friday granted the City of Pasadena’s motion for summary judgment in the discrimination lawsuit brought by Taisyn Crutchfield, a Black former Pasadena police officer who alleged she was subjected to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on her race and gender.
Judge Richard L. Fruin, presiding in Department 15 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, ruled that Crutchfield failed to establish triable issues of material fact on all five causes of action in her lawsuit against the city, according to the 30-page minute order filed February 13.
The ruling dismissed claims of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The decision ends a case that drew attention when Crutchfield first filed a claim against the city in November 2023, alleging she was punished after intervening to de-escalate a confrontation between a fellow officer and a civilian in February 2023. Two co-plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, Sgt. Milton White and Officer Jarvis Shelby, previously settled their claims with the city.
Crutchfield’s lawsuit, filed in May 2024 by civil rights attorney Bradley C. Gage, alleged a pattern of racial bias within the Pasadena Police Department. Attorney Milad Sadr of the same firm appeared on Crutchfield’s behalf at Friday’s hearing. Carmen M. Aguado, of the law firm Ogletree Deakins, represented the city.
The case stemmed from a February 20, 2023 incident in which Crutchfield, then a probationary officer, physically intervened during an encounter between Officer Ralph Palacios and a civilian. A sergeant at the scene filed a complaint alleging Crutchfield had been insubordinate by disobeying a direct order to return to the station. Crutchfield was placed on paid administrative leave in April 2023 pending an internal affairs investigation, consistent with department policy, according to the court’s ruling.
The allegations against her were ultimately not sustained.
On the harassment claims, the court found that the two comments Crutchfield attributed to an Officer Garcia in 2021 — a remark about wanting to “wash” Crutchfield out of the police academy and an alleged reference comparing her to a black dog named Tyson — were insufficient as a matter of law to constitute severe or pervasive harassment. The court noted Garcia was not Crutchfield’s supervisor, that Crutchfield did not report the comments until her November 2023 government claim, and that she successfully completed the police academy.
On discrimination, the court examined seven employment decisions Crutchfield alleged were adverse actions: the denial of a third-party combat training request, her paid administrative leave, the tolling of her probationary period, placement on a non-disciplinary performance improvement plan, an alleged denial of backup on a service call, the denial of a special assignment, and her alleged constructive discharge.
The court found none constituted adverse employment actions under FEHA.
The ruling noted that Crutchfield resigned from the department in June 2024 to accept a position at Cal State Northridge, submitting her two-weeks’ notice the same day she was hired there. The court found insufficient evidence that conditions at the department were “so intolerable” that a reasonable person would have been compelled to resign, as required to establish constructive discharge.
The court also rejected Crutchfield’s retaliation claims, finding she did not establish that decision-makers were aware of her formal complaints before the alleged adverse actions were taken.
On the failure-to-prevent claim, the court ruled that because the underlying discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims failed, the city could not be held liable for failing to prevent conduct that was not established.
The city had argued throughout the litigation that its actions were consistent with existing department policies and that officers had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for each employment decision.
When Crutchfield first filed her claim in 2023, the city said in a statement that the allegations were “inaccurate” and that it would “vigorously defend itself.”
Crutchfield’s attorneys had publicly characterized her case as part of a broader pattern of racial bias at the department. Attorney Gage said in a December 2023 press conference that “the Pasadena Police Department has a history of racial discrimination, racial profiling, disparities of punishment of African American employees and retaliation against those officers who are whistleblowers.”
With the summary judgment granted, the court vacated the final status conference that had been scheduled for March 6 and the jury trial set for March 16.
The city’s attorneys were directed to prepare a judgment of dismissal of Crutchfield’s claims.
Whether Crutchfield’s attorneys will appeal the ruling was not immediately clear.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
