On December 16, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued an unpublished decision in Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified School District. In that case, LAUSD terminated the plaintiff as a school teacher for throwing a student out of his classroom, throwing his backpack out after him, and using profanity. Plaintiff sued alleging retaliation, and that the reason for his termination given by LAUSD was pretextual. Plaintiff argued that the LAUSD conducted a “shoddy” investigation, because it took more than a year to complete and he was placed on paid leave without being told of the allegations against him.
The Court agreed that if an employer terminates an employee for misconduct discovered during the employer’s investigation, evidence the investigation was inadequate may undermine the credibility of an employer’s stated reason for termination. The Court also stated that, generally, withholding from the plaintiff knowledge of the accusations against him and taking many months (or more) to complete an investigation might be support a plaintiff’s claim of pretext. But, in this case, the Court found the LAUSD’s investigation was adequate, because (1) the allegations were about misconduct with minors, (2) LAUSD submitted evidence it received a high volume of reports during the relevant period, which caused delays in all investigations, and (3) the plaintiff made various mistakes in his court filings leading the Court to find that he waived various arguments he may otherwise have made.
The key take aways from this case are: (A) investigations are scrutinized in lawsuits, and when they are botched or delayed, this can help a plaintiff win at trial; and (B) if an investigation takes a long time and/or allegations are withheld from the accused, the employer better have a very good reason for doing so (and having a Plaintiff who makes litigation mistakes can also be helpful).
--Adam K. Treiger, Esq., VP of the Board
