A former deputy sheriff has reignited his legal battle against a major city, claiming that his dismissal and subsequent treatment were rooted in discrimination and retaliation. Douglas S. Jones, Jr., filed a complaint on April 2022 in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, against the City and County of San Francisco.
Jones's saga began in 2015 when he was terminated from his position at the San Francisco Sheriff's Department. He appealed this decision through arbitration, which ruled in his favor in 2017, reducing his penalty to a written reprimand and ordering his reinstatement with back pay and benefits. However, the then-sheriff rejected this ruling based on a collective bargaining agreement provision. This led to Jones and the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) filing their first lawsuit in December 2017 to enforce the arbitration award. The trial court confirmed the award in March 2019, and Jones was reinstated in November 2020.
Despite his reinstatement, Jones claimed that he did not receive full back pay or appellate costs. This led to another motion to enforce judgment in September 2021, but the outcome remains unclear as SFDSA dismissed the first lawsuit by May 2022. Meanwhile, Jones had already filed a second lawsuit in December 2019 alleging discrimination and retaliation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The trial court dismissed this case too, citing litigation privilege.
Undeterred, Jones filed yet another lawsuit less than three weeks after the dismissal of his second case. In this third complaint under FEHA for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent such actions, Jones—a Black man over 40—alleged that the City's refusal to fully reinstate him was based on race, gender, age discrimination, and retaliation for contesting his termination through arbitration.
Jones detailed how he was assigned dangerous duties post-reinstatement without recognition of seniority or specialty assignments like Emergency Services Unit (ESU), which involved additional pay and training opportunities. He claimed these adverse employment actions were due to racial bias and retaliatory motives because he contested his termination.
The City demurred again on grounds that Jones’s claims were barred by litigation privilege—arguing that disputes over compliance with court orders could not be independently actionable under FEHA. However, upon appeal, it was determined that many of Jones’s allegations involved noncommunicative acts occurring after reinstatement—such as arbitrary job assignments—which are not protected by litigation privilege.
Ultimately reversing the trial court's decision dismissing Jones’s latest complaint without leave to amend highlights ongoing systemic issues within employment practices at public institutions. As per Judge Langhorne Wilson's opinion supported by Acting Presiding Judge Banke and Judge Siggins: “While allegations based on rejection of arbitrator’s decision may be barred by litigation privilege...actions taken following reinstatement such as failure to restore seniority appear actionable.”
The case ID is A166189 presided over by Retired Presiding Justice Langhorne Wilson alongside Judges Banke & Siggins.