A senior detective at the Fremont Police Department has accused his employer of unlawful retaliation, sparking a contentious legal battle. Michael Gebhardt filed a complaint against the City of Fremont in Alameda County Superior Court on July 16, 2024, alleging that he faced severe professional repercussions for exposing departmental misconduct.
Gebhardt's lawsuit centers around several incidents dating back to August 2020. He claims that after reporting what he believed were illegal instructions given by Police Chief Kimberly Petersen regarding a blackmail case, he was subjected to retaliatory actions. Specifically, Gebhardt reported the issue to Captain Fred Bobbitt and even contacted the FBI. In March 2021, he also reported discriminatory remarks made by Fremont City Manager Mark Danaj concerning race-based discrimination within the department. These actions allegedly led to criminal and administrative investigations against him, extended periods of administrative leave, and modified duty assignments.
One significant incident occurred on March 8, 2021, when Gebhardt facilitated a legally mandated consultation between a detained juvenile suspect and an attorney. The conversation was recorded due to departmental policy, which Gebhardt later learned violated attorney-client privilege. After refusing to comply with this policy further and reporting it up his chain of command, Gebhardt found himself under investigation and placed on administrative leave by FPD Captain Sean Washington at Chief Petersen's behest.
The lawsuit details various forms of alleged retaliation: from being barred from police premises and stripped of his role as president of the Fremont Police Association to having an internal affairs investigation manipulated against him. Gebhardt contends these actions harmed his career prospects and personal well-being significantly.
In response, the City of Fremont filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing that their actions were protected activities related to official proceedings. The trial court denied this motion; however, upon appeal, it was determined that some claims did indeed fall under protected activity while others did not.
Gebhardt seeks relief through multiple causes of action including retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Labor Code section 1102.5. He aims for compensatory damages for lost income, harm to his professional reputation, emotional distress, as well as punitive damages.
The judges involved in this case include Tucher P.J., Fujisaki J., Petrou J., representing both sides in court proceedings identified under Case ID A167835.