A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of the city’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate, delivering a blow to former LAPD officer Natalie Stringer and several other officers and firefighters who challenged their terminations.
Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff stated that while the police department officials had denied Stringer her right to respond to allegations prior to a disciplinary meeting, the city did not violate labor laws in terminating her based on “failure to comply with a valid condition of employment.”
The case centered not on the vaccine itself but on the city’s requirement for employees to bear the cost of COVID vaccination and testing, an employer-mandated expense, and to do so within a tight deadline.
Greg Yacoubian, representing Stringer and others, argued that the LAPD infringed upon their due process rights by swiftly terminating them.
“They were not allowed representation; they had to make these decisions really quickly,” Yacoubian said, raising concerns about potential future demands on employees.
“If that’s allowed, they could be told to do anything down the road. And I don’t think anyone wants a police department that has that unblinking compliance.”
The city attorney’s office, representing the city and LAPD Chief Michel Moore, declined to comment due to pending litigation.
The LAPD spokesperson also refrained from making a statement.
Before Stringer’s termination, the city had threatened to withhold pay for noncompliant employees and imposed a $65 deduction from their paychecks for each COVID test, with exceptions for medical or religious exemptions.
Stringer refused to comply with testing through the city’s authorized vendor, Bluestone, leading to her removal from duty and subsequent termination by Moore, despite her supervisor expressing willingness to have her back.
However, Beckloff found Stringer and three other officers entitled to back pay due to the denial of their constitutional right to a pre-disciplinary Skelly hearing.
Stringer is to receive back pay from January 17, 2022, to May 25, 2022.
Similar findings were made in the case of another terminated LAPD officer, Barbara “Bobby” Riggs, who criticized the department’s pressure tactics on noncompliant officers.
“So you make it so uncomfortable and financially burdensome so that people are either forced into compliance or they quit or retire,” said Riggs. “I could’ve retired, almost at a full pension, but somebody had to stand up and say this is wrong. And not just for me, this was for all city employees.”
Dorit R. Reiss, a legal expert and professor at the University of San Francisco Law School, noted the uphill battle faced in appeals, noting employers’ broad discretion in setting workplace requirements and recent court rulings affirming government entities’ authority in such matters.
