1 2. Plaintiffs’ addresses are confidential pursuant to the Penal Code.

Plaintiffs are peace officers with the

2 CITY OF REDDING POLICE DEPARTMENT(“RPD”), a component of the CITY.
3 3. Defendants Does 31-60, and each of them (hereinafter collectively referred to as “CITY” or
4 “Defendants”) were employees, supervisors, managers, agents, joint venturers, directors, principals,
5 or otherwise employed by or working with each of the other Defendants. The acts, omissions and
6 conduct of Defendants and each of them were authorized, ratified and/or approved of by each of the
7 other Defendants herein.
8 4. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of Defendants
9 Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sues these Defendants by such
10 fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. Plaintiffs will amend this
11 complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
12 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of these fictitiously named Defendants
13 engaged in intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct, and are responsible in some manner for the
14 occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages as herein alleged were directly and legally
15 (proximately) caused by the conduct of Defendants’ and each of them, individually and collectively,
16 jointly, and severally, and vicariously, or in some other legal manner.
17 6. Reference to actions or conduct of “Defendants and each of them” or to “Defendant” shall include the
18 singular and plural and shall include all Defendants in this action, whether named or designated as a
19 Doe. Reference to any singular Defendant shall include all Doe Defendants to which the facts later are
20 shown to apply.
21 7. On or about March 27, 2020, WALLACE and BRINDLEY filed DFEH complaints and obtained
22 immediate right to sue letters. True and correct copies of the WALLACE and BRINDLEY DFEH
23 complaints & right to sue letters are attached hereto as Ex. “1" & “2".On or about March 30, 2020,
24 COGLE filed a DFEH complaint and obtained an immediate right to sue letter. A true and correct copy
25 of the COGLE DFEH complaint & right to sue letter is attached hereto as Ex. “3".
26 8. Moreover, Plaintiffs filed a timely government claim and a supplemental government claim. True and
27 correct copies are attached hereto as Ex. “4" & “5".
28 COMMON FACTUAL ISSUES

COMPLAINT Page -2-

 1 9. The facts set out below are illustrative of the continuing discrimination and harassment suffered by
2 the plaintiffs.
3 10. The current Redding Police Department Strategic Plan was signed into place in 2016/2017. Under
4 the succession planning portion of the document it states that the age of department administrators
5 is a problem because it limits mobility within the department. Specifically, the RPD Strategic Plan
6 stated in pertinent part: “The department is anticipated to lose a significant amount of senior level
7 experience between 2020 and 2023. Since the department has only two Captains and four
8 Lieutenants, there is limited rotation and opportunity for promotion. This factor, coup led with the
9 similar age of the department's administrators, creates this problem.”
10 11. To carry out this plan the department, under the direction of Chief Bill Schueller has made a
11 directed effort to lower the overall age of the command staff.
12 12. WALLACE is a 48 year old Police Lieutenant with nearly 30 years of police experience.
13 WALLACE holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice, a POST Advanced Certificate, a POST
14 Supervisory Certificate and a POST Management Certificate. WALLACE is the senior most
15 Lieutenant with 9 years as a Lieutenant and 13 years overall as a Supervisor (Corporal and
16 Sergeant 2 years apiece).
17 13. As a Lieutenant for the last 9 years, WALLACE managed every Division within the Redding Police
18 Department, Administration, Investigations and Field Operations. WALLACE has effectively
19 managed the highest liability assignments within the Police Department for many years. WALLACE
20 was the SWAT Tactical Commander. WALLACE managed the Canine Program, the Field Training
21 Officer Program, the Firearms Training Program, School Resource Officers and more.
22 14. As a Lieutenant, WALLACE was assigned as the Division Commander in Investigations for four
23 years. WALLACE received outstanding performance reviews and managed the Division effectively.
24 WALLACE has been awarded the Redding Police Department Officer of the Year and the Redding
25 Exchange Club Agent of the Year. WALLACE has never been disciplined while working for RPD.
26 15. On or about August 29, 2019, three days prior to the closing date for the Captain promotional
27 testing process, Chief Schueller, summoned WALLACE to his office. WALLACE had worked the
28 previous two years for then-Captain Schueller in Field Operations. During this time frame,

COMPLAINT Page -3-

 1 Schueller lauded WALLACE’s performance and told him what a great job WALLACE was doing.
2 Schueller told WALLACE that he communicated well with Schueller and WALLACE always kept
3 him up to date, ran his shifts well and made excellent tactical decisions. Schueller told WALLACE
4 this throughout the two years and prior to giving WALLACE his performance review. This review
5 was simply a memo style alternative evaluation, because Schueller stated WALLACE was doing a
6 great job and there was no reason to write another full evaluation because there were no issues.
7 16. During the August 29, 2019 meeting, Chief Schueller told WALLACE that he hated these types of
8 meetings and began to tell WALLACE some concerns Schueller had about WALLACE’s
9 performance. Schueller claimed he had “heard” that WALLACE had not responded to some emails
10 in the past and had not completed some task associated with these emails. WALLACE asked who
11 Schueller heard this from and if he could give WALLACE specific examples of what he was
12 referring to.
13 17. Schueller could not provide WALLACE with who said anything and could not provide any
14 examples. Schueller then told WALLACE to start having one weekly briefing a month with his
15 School Resource Officers although he stated WALLACE meets with them in his office every day,
16 Schueller then stated he wanted WALLACE to come in once a month on his days off to meet with
17 the weekend supervisors. These were non-existent issues that Schueller could not explain and were
18 simply a pretext for discrimination. They also are a violation of the POBR.
19 18. This was the first time Schueller had mentioned any of this in the two years WALLACE worked for
20 him. This appeared to be an obvious pretext to not promote WALLACE in the upcoming Captain
21 test. These concocted “issues” and the delivery by Chief Schueller were highly unusual and without
22 any merit. Schueller refused and failed to provide any examples to support his claims. WALLACE
23 expressed that he felt this was strange as he had never heard any of this from Schueller previously.
24 It was no coincidence that this happened several days prior to the deadline for Captain applications.
25 WALLACE asked Chief Schueller if WALLACE was “wasting my time” in testing for Captain and
26 Schueller immediately stated, “No, you’re not and neither is Pete [BRINDLEY].” BRINDLEY was
27 never mentioned in this discussion prior to this. BRINDLEY like WALLACE is over 40, and was
28 older than the other candidates seeking promotion to Captain.

COMPLAINT Page -4-

 1 19. Chief Schueller became flustered and stammered out that he had “heard people saying he was going
2 to promote Jon and Brian.” These are the two youngest and most junior Lieutenants, Jon Poletski
3 and Brian Barner.
4 20. Chief Schueller said, “Well, you’ve only got about 18 months to go before you retire.” WALLACE
5 responded that he had not decided when he was going to retire. Schueller continued on regarding
6 his new Chief of Police job, stating it would be good for the agency to “get some new blood.”
7 21. Determining when the “older employees” were going to retire was a past practice and obsession of
8 the RPD, which repeatedly asked employees orally and in writing when they would retire.
9 22. Illustratively, on or about August 6, 2012, the RPD sent a retirement survey to a select group of
10 employees. Tellingly, at that point none of the plaintiffs received such a survey, because they were
11 eight years younger than they are now.
12 23. On or about September 4, 2015 Chief Paoletti received a memorandum regarding a retirement
13 survey distributed to employees over 48 years of age.
14 24. On or about February 7, 2017, RPD sent another survey to determine when select (older)
15 employees were going to retire. This time, both WALLACE and BRINDLEY were part of the
16 older employees who were asked when they would retire.
17 25. On or about July 3, 2017, RPD sent a confidential memorandum indicating that the retirement
18 survey was sent to the employees known to be over 48 years of age. It listed WALLACE and
19 BRINDLEY with “proposed retirement dates” of 2021 and 2024 respectively.
20 26. On or about September 12, 2019, another retirement survey was provided to the plaintiffs by
21 defendants seeking to determine when they would retire, so that the department could compose a
22 “hit list”, “death list” or “retirement list.” No matter what the list was derisively called it amounted
23 to a “discrimination list” singling out older employees to preclude them from promotions and other
24 employment opportunities because of their ages. Consequently, substantially younger and less well
25 qualified employees received employment benefits rather than the plaintiffs.
26 27. After the September 12, 2019 retirement survey, the Lieutenant testing process took place on
27 September 27, 2019. The results were also announced that day, further demonstrating the
28 pretextual nature of the sham promotional process.

COMPLAINT Page -5-

 1 28. After the September 12, 2019 retirement survey, WALLACE was stripped of a very special
2 assignment of managing the Field Training Officer Program. WALLACE had been managing this
3 assignment for years and had received accolades in his evaluations for doing a great job running the
4 program. This assignment is critical in shaping the future of the Redding Police Department. Newly
5 promoted Captain Barner simply announced in a Lieutenant Meeting that newly promoted, 39 year
6 old, Lieutenant Brian Cole would now be managing the Field Training Officer Program. Lt. Cole
7 has never trained anyone as an FTO and was a Sergeant in the program under WALLACE’s
8 supervision for a short period of time. WALLACE was an FTO as an Officer and trained numerous
9 officers and had years of experience managing the program.
10 29. Instead, WALLACE was assigned to be the Program Manager of the Ride-Along program, which
11 is an insignificant assignment for a manager, due to the fact is it mainly run by a Corporal and
12 clerical staff.
13 30. BRINDLEY is 49 years old with over 25 years of law enforcement experience. BRINDLEY has
14 been employed by the Redding Police Department for 17 years. BRINDLEY has served as a
15 supervisor for ten years, the last six as a Lieutenant.
16 31. During his time as a Lieutenant, BRINDLEY has managed many specialty assignments including:
17 SWAT, K-9, defensive tactics, force options and EVOC. BRINDLEY has served as a patrol watch
18 commander, administration commander and spent four years as the Investigations Division
19 Commander. BRINDLEY has received excellent performance reviews and has never received
20 discipline during his career.
21 32. BRINDLEY has a bachelor's degree from UC Davis and a masters degree in public administration
22 from National University. BRINDLEY is also a graduate of the FBI National Academy.
23 33. During the promotional process at the Redding Police Department in the Fall of 2019, there was
24 clear and obvious age discrimination against the oldest, most tenured and experienced supervisors
25 across all ranks.
26 34. Those promoted to the rank of Corporal, Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain were less experienced,
27 had less seniority (at the department and in rank) and were significantly younger than the plaintiffs.
28 35. The promotions were not based on merit. Instead, age was the reason.

COMPLAINT Page -6-

 1 36. The Chief of Police exercised sole authority of the promotions with a 100% Chiefs Oral testing
2 procedure for promotions to Captain and Lieutenant.
3 37. In the 2019 captain promotional process, the Chief’s Board was comprised of Chief Moore, Chief
4 Schueller, and the Redding City Attorney. Both Chiefs Moore and Schueller made repeated
5 references to employees ages.
6 38. Schueller told WALLACE that he came in 4th out of 4. Yet, in a subsequent conversation with the
7 Redding City Attorney, WALLACE was told he did a great job in the captain promotional process.
8 The City Attorney lauded WALLACE’s performance and said he was very impressed.
9 39. To further its discriminatory intent, there was not a City of Redding personnel representative
10 present at the oral boards, as had been past practice and city policy.
11 40. As a demonstration that the selection process for promotion to captain was a sham and pre-
12 ordained, as well as to provide an advantage to younger applicants, Chief Schueller approved a
13 second in command management class for the two youngest and least experienced Lieutenants,
14 Barner and Poletski, in August of 2019, one month before the Captain’s testing, while excluding
15 the older applicants for promotions from the command management class. The disparity in
16 training was designed to, and did result in the promotion of the youngest candidates. Thus,
17 Schueller engaged in “two adverse actions in one.” Lack of training and lack of promotion based
18 on age.
19 41. COGLE asked Chief Schueller about the two youngest Lieutenants being scheduled for second in
20 command class during a discussion regarding the promotional process. This discussion took place
21 on March 3, 2020. Schueller denied that this had happened. COGLE told him there was
22 documentary proof that this occurred, there was an entry on the department’s training calendar that
23 still existed showing Barner and Poletski had been scheduled for the class in August when the
24 promotions did not occur until September. Schueller denied that this occurred.
25 42. The next day on March 4th, 2020, Chief Schueller walked into the Sergeant’s office and told
26 COGLE that he had located the training calendar entry and that the class had indeed been
27 scheduled but that did not indicate the promotions were pre-planned. He indicated he simply forgot
28 about scheduling the class and the names were just “fillers” because classes fill up fast. What Chief

COMPLAINT Page -7-

 1 Schueller did not mention was that Brian Barner paid for this class using his department issued
2 Cal-Card, which would indicate he was planning on attending. Any class of this type, and any
3 expenditure of this type, would have to be authorized by the Chief of Police prior to an employee
4 being on the list.
5 43. Exempt employees are allowed by their MOU to adjust their hours and sometimes leave early due
6 to the fact they do not receive overtime compensation and oftentimes work in excess of their
7 scheduled work hours. There were times BRINDLEY would leave early during the work week.
8 Yet, despite the accepted practice, BRINDLEY was called into Chief Schueller’s office before the
9 Captain’s promotional testing process. As a pretext, to help justify discrimination in the Captain’s
10 promotional process, Schueller said people were complaining that BRINDLEY was leaving early.
11 BRINDLEY asked who was complaining. Schueller said Chief Roger Moore was aware of the
12 leaving early issue, but did not explain how Moore allegedly knew this. Subsequently, BRINDLEY
13 was denied a flexible schedule even though others (younger than him) freely continued to use a
14 flexible schedule. BRINDLEY was denied any notice of any investigation, individuals interviewed,
15 and all other basic requirements under the Peace Officers Bill of Rights (POBRA) as required by
16 law if an employee is subject to an investigation that can lead to any discipline or loss of
17 employment benefits (including but not limited to lack of promotional opportunities.)
18 44. The day of the Captain promotional test BRINDLEY was called into Chief Schueller’s office.
19 BRINDLEY was advised that he had placed third in the testing process even though BRINDLEY
20 had been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant a year prior to Schueller. The two youngest and most
21 junior Lieutenants had been promoted to the rank of Captain (Barner and Poletski). They were
22 immediately promoted to “acting” Captains, pending retirements of two employees.
23 45. The second promotion to Captain was Lt. Brian Barner, with just over two years of Lieutenant
24 experience and third in seniority of the four Lieutenants. Barner had received discipline for various
25 acts of misconduct. Barner has a track record of mistreating subordinates.
26 46. As further evidence of discrimination and retaliation, during his term as Captain and later Chief,
27 Schueller removed BRINDLEY and WALLACE from the decision making process. There have
28 been many instances when BRINDLEY and WALLACE were told of policy decisions, agency

COMPLAINT Page -8-

 1 direction and personnel issues for the first time when it was obvious more junior command staff
2 were already aware of the situation.
3 47. After the promotions took place in the fall of 2019, Levi Solada was promoted to the rank of
4 Lieutenant and assigned as the SWAT team commander, even though BRINDLEY was the
5 assistant commander and Solada had no experience as a commander.
6 48. In April of 2020, after the plaintiffs filed and served their DFEH complaints, newly promoted Lt.
7 Brian Cole was assigned to day shift watch commander, which is widely considered to be the best
8 shift. BRINDLEY and WALLACE were told they were mandated to rotate their schedule.
9 BRINDLEY and WALLACE are the only two non-probationary employees in the department that
10 had to rotate demonstrating further evidence of both discrimination and retaliation. The older
11 employees after filing DFEH complaints were given less desirable assignments as part of this
12 rotation and forced change.
13 49. Past practice during WALLACE’s nine years as a Lieutenant has been for the Lieutenants and the
14 Field Operations Captain to meet about special assignment openings, discuss who wanted the
15 assignments, and who was the most qualified. The assignments would then be made by consensus.
16 Due to the two promotions of Captain Barner and Captain Poletski, their previous special
17 assignments were left unfilled. However, there were now three newly promoted Lieutenants who
18 would be able to take over their assignments. Captain Barner did not meet and discuss to see who
19 was the most qualified or best fit for each open assignment. He simply took important assignments
20 from Wallace and Brindley to accommodate younger Lieutenants (Cole and Solada). During the
21 Lieutenant meeting in late September or early October of 2019, this did not happen.
22 50. COGLE is 43 years old. COGLE has worked for the Redding Police Department his entire law
23 enforcement career which spans over 20 years. COGLE has worked for the City of Redding for
24 over 25 years in numerous different capacities (20 years with RPD and five years with City outside
25 of RPD). COGLE has been a Sergeant for the last nine years. COGLE has a Bachelor’s Degree
26 from Chico State University. During his nine years as Sergeant, COGLE has worked in all three
27 divisions of the Redding Police Department serving in Patrol, Administration and Investigations.
28 COGLE was the only Sergeant taking the Lieutenants exam to have worked in all three divisions.

COMPLAINT Page -9-

 1 For nearly the last six years, COGLE has been working in the Investigations Division where
2 COGLE worked all three sergeant’s positions including Major Crimes, the most exclusive and
3 demanding Sergeant’s position in the Redding Police Department.
4 51. COGLE was assigned responsibility for investigating crimes against children, Homicides, and
5 Officer Involved Shootings. COGLE took the last Lieutenants test nearly two years ago and
6 finished second, there was only one position available so COGLE was forced to test again. Since
7 the last test, for the past couple of years, COGLE has been assigned to major crimes and received
8 high praise from his direct supervisor, Captain Eric Wallace. COGLE has never in his career had
9 any disciplinary issues and has received excellent performance evaluations.
10 52. COGLE was the most tenured (and second oldest) Sergeant to take the Lieutenants test on
11 September 27, 2019.
12 53. COGLE met with Chief Schueller in person within a week of the 2019 Lieutenant test results being
13 published. At the Redding Police Department it is expected, and typical, for those who were not
14 promoted to meet with command staff to discuss why they were denied promotion and what can be
15 done to improve their prospects in the future.
16 54. During their discussion of the testing process and the results, Schueller told COGLE that the
17 command staff needed new blood, and COGLE would be happy being the “senior sergeant” in
18 patrol. COGLE was not happy to be the “senior sergeant” in patrol which was viewed as putting
19 the older employees “out to pasture.” The patrol sergeant is the most physically arduous Sergeant
20 position and is viewed as a way for the department to force out older employees to bring in the
21 younger blood. Chief Schueller demonstrated his discriminatory animus and created a further
22 hostile work environment when he repeated his “new blood” comment publicly during a
23 promotional ceremony he officiated.
24 55. Contrary to past practice, there was no proctor, advisor, or observer from Personnel present during
25 the Lieutenants exam which consisted 100% of an oral interview. Plaintiffs have taken several
26 promotional exams at the Redding Police Department during their careers. There has usually been
27 a representative from personnel present to insure that the promotional process was a fair one, and
28 to avoid any type of discrimination, retaliation or other wrongdoing. During the Lieutenant exam

COMPLAINT Page -10-

 1 that Cogle applied for, RPD ignored its past practice. There was no proctor. Thus, Chief Schueller
2 and his new captains (Barner and Poletsky) could create a pretextual testing process whereby
3 promotions did not have to follow a fair process.
4 56. The three Sergeants who were promoted to Lieutenants were all less experienced, and had less time
5 on overall and as a Sergeant than COGLE. One has significant prior discipline issues, two are
6 significantly younger than COGLE, and significantly younger than Lieutenants at the Redding
7 Police Department have historically been, which was Chief Schueller’s ultimate goal - creating new
8 blood, and eliminating the “old blood.”
9 57. One of the newly promoted Lieutenants had no experience outside of patrol as a sergeant, and none
10 of the newly promoted Lieutenants (Brian Cole, Levi Solada, Ron Icely) had supervised in all three
11 divisions of the Police Department, but COGLE has. One of the promoted Lieutenants has almost
12 no formal education. The promotions were not merit based. Experience and education are
13 important attributes for a manager, but that was ignored during the Lieutenant’s promotional
14 process so that two younger employees, and an applicant in a business relationship with the
15 interviewers were selected rather than the better qualified, COGLE.
16 58. As part of a continuing pattern of discrimination, harassment and in violation of POBRA rights,
17 COGLE was subject to a pre-textual investigation conducted right before the Lieutenant testing
18 process. This investigation was carried out by two Sergeants who would ultimately test against
19 COGLE for the position of Lieutenant. Their candidacy for Lieutenant was already known at the
20 time the investigation took place. These two Sergeants interviewed every employee previously
21 under COGLE’s command and filtered this information back to the command staff. This
22 information was later used during the Lieutenant testing process to damage COGLE and elevate
23 one of the other Sergeants who was ultimately promoted. COGLE was the only candidate subject
24 to this investigation, was never notified of it, was never given a chance to review the alleged
25 information collected, and was never interviewed all of which violates the POBRA which applies to
26 all peace officers in the State of California. COGLE only learned of the Star-Chamber like, secret
27 investigation after the testing process was complete. Chief Schueller acknowledged information
28 collected during the investigation was discussed during the deliberation regarding COGLE’s

COMPLAINT Page -11-

 1 Lieutenant prospects. Both of the Sergeants who conducted this investigation were ultimately
2 promoted to Lieutenant.
3 59. The promotions for Lieutenant were all pre-planned and favored younger candidates. The
4 promotional process took place on September 27, 2019. However, nearly three months prior in
5 July 2019, members of the SWAT team were notified that then Sergeant Levi Solada would be
6 moving soon to commander of the SWAT team, indicating that he would be promoted as that
7 position is held by a Lieutenant. Some members of the SWAT team began referring to him as
8 Lieutenant Solada in July. Sergeant Sam Llamas was also approached and asked if he would be
9 interested in the position of Sergeant in administration, a position held at that time by Sergeant
10 Icely, which indicated Sergeant Icely, who was going to test for Lieutenant would be getting
11 promoted, even though the testing had not yet taken place. All of these promotions and
12 movements ultimately ended up coming to fruition, demonstrating the testing process was a mere
13 pretext or sham. Sergeant Cole and Sergeant Solada were also recruited to conduct an
14 investigation regarding the operations of the Redding Police Department Investigations Division,
15 where COGLE had been a Sergeant for almost six years. Neither Sergeant Cole or Sergeant
16 Solada are involved in the professional standards unit of the Redding Police Department, they do
17 not typically conduct investigations regarding their peers, or command staff. This was
18 unprecedented. In the past 20 years, COGLE is not aware of any other time when promotional
19 candidates were allowed to investigate another promotional candidate just prior to a testing process
20 that they are all competing in. This also indicated that these two Sergeants (Cole and Solada)
21 would be promoted before the testing process even took place as they were assigned this
22 investigation involving another Lieutenant candidate (COGLE). The entire investigation also did
23 not comply with the rules under POBRA.
24 60. After the promotional testing where COGLE was ranked last out of all the candidates, command
25 staff spread word that they had ranked COGLE last to “send a message” and “make a statement”.
26 Word also circulated that during the promotional deliberations COGLE had been referred to as a
27 “waste of a Sergeant” and that COGLE would not be considered for other positions outside of the
28 Lieutenant’s process. Simply put, COGLE was too old and he would be sent out to pasture.

COMPLAINT Page -12-

 1 61. Plaintiffs have seen RPD force out older employees. For example, Sgt. Les James was denied
2 promotions and speciality assignments based on his age. He was relegated to Patrol, which is a
3 physically demanding assignment meant to force out older employees, by wearing them down and
4 forcing them to retire or quit.
5 62. Plaintiffs suffered harm and injury that was legally (proximately) caused by the conduct of the
6 defendants and each of them. Said harm and injury includes but is not limited to special
7 (economic) damages, General (non-economic) damages, attorneys fees, litigation costs, future
8 damages, and past damages. Also plaintiffs will be subjected to increased tax liability by having
9 recovery paid all at one time, rather than over a period of time, lost interest and investment
10 opportunities on money that is past due, and such further relief as shown at time of trial and in
11 excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court.
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
13 ALL DEFENDANTS
14 63. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this
15 reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.
16 64. Cal. Gov. Code §12940(a) makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee
17 in “terms, conditions or privileges of employment” because of the protected status of the employee.
18 (The discrimination includes but is not limited to, different terms and conditions of employment,
19 which includes but is not limited to denial of promotions; loss of supervisory authority, loss of
20 training opportunities, involuntary transfers to less prestigious position and other adverse actions.)
21 65. Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiffs.
22 66. Each Plaintiff was over the age of 40 at the time of the adverse employment action.
23 67. Plaintiffs’ age was a substantial motivating reason for Defendant’s adverse employment actions
24 68. Plaintiffs’ age has been a motivating reason for Defendant’s adverse employment actions.
25 69. Plaintiffs have been harmed and Defendant’s discriminatory conduct were a substantial factor in
26 causing Plaintiffs’ harm as set forth above.
27 70. As a direct and legal result of the discrimination, Plaintiffs suffered harm and injury that was legally
28 (proximately) caused by the conduct of the Defendants and each of them. Said harm and injury

COMPLAINT Page -13-

 1 includes but is not limited to special (economic) damages, General (non-economic) damages,
2 attorneys fees, litigation costs, future damages, and past damages. Damage to reputation. Lost
3 economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors. Also increased tax liability by having
4 recovery paid all at one time, rather than over a period of time, lost interest and investment
5 opportunities on money that is past due, and such further relief as shown at time of trial and in
6 excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court.
7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8 FOR HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT/ HARASSMENT
9 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
10 71. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this
11 reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.
12 72. The harassment included but was not limited to unwanted and unwelcome comments, and slurs,
13 directly to the Plaintiffs and that were reported to Plaintiffs by others, creating a hostile work
14 environment. The harassing comments included but are not limited to the comments noted above,
15 and several others including but not limited to the following
16 a. As a captain, Schueller made several references to WALLCE’s age, when WALLACE was
17 going to retire, and WALLACE’s service credit.
18 b. In April 2019, a Sergeant was forced to retire after being denied a specialty assignment, and
19 Schueller told him words to the effect that he was too old. Schueller said younger members
20 of RPD were going to get the specialty assignments.
21 c. Other RPD officers have been passed over for promotion and harassed into retirement.
22 d. Command staff spread word that they had ranked COGLE last to “send a message” and
23 “make a statement.” Word also circulated that during the promotional deliberations
24 COGLE had been referred to as a “waste of a Sergeant” and that COGLE would not be
25 considered for other positions outside of the Lieutenant’s process.
26 e. Chief Schueller said, “Well, you’ve only got about 18 months to go before you retire.”
27 f. Schueller stated that his new Chief of Police job, would be good for the agency to “get
28 some new blood.”

COMPLAINT Page -14-

 1 g. Plaintiffs were targeted with comments such as, “Your mustache sure is getting gray.”;
2 “Your hair is getting gray”; “you’ve been a cop for years/long time.”
3 h. During their discussion of the testing process and the results, Schueller told COGLE that
4 the command staff needed new blood, and COGLE would be happy being the “senior
5 sergeant” in patrol. Chief Schueller also made the “new blood” comment publicly during a
6 promotional ceremony he officiated.
7 i. RPD put out surveys regarding when employees will retire. Employees were required to fill
8 in their age and retirement, which RPD kept track of. Such surveys were filled out on the
9 eve of promotions.
10 j. Previously, Chief Schueller harassed a car washer in his late 70s. Then Lt. Schueller had to
11 be told by the previous Chief to leave the car washer alone after picking on the elderly man
12 over a parking spot based on his age. Immediately after being promoted to Captain,
13 Schueller and Barner created a program to use carwash tickets and fired the “elderly”
14 carwasher. They openly commented many times about the carwasher being “too old,” “too
15 old to wash cars,” “so old,” “older than dirt,” “worthless,” and laughed about firing him.
16 Plaintiffs heard such comments directly or heard of them from others. Moreover, the
17 carwasher was referred to as “Blue,” based on an elderly character in the movie, “Old
18 School.” In the movie, the character was quite old and ended up dying.
19 k. On a continuous and regular occasion, Plaintiffs and other RPD employees were subject to
20 derogatory comments about age.
21 l. Chief Moore regularly asked WALLACE when he was retiring, his age, and his service
22 credit.
23 m. On a continuous and regular occasion, Plaintiffs and other RPD employees were asked
24 about retirement and when they would retire.
25 n. The plaintiffs were repeatedly asked, when are you going to retire or words to that effect.
26 o. Wallace was asked by Schueller on several occasions when he would turn 50.
27 p. After a SWAT agility test that BRINDLEY participated in, several RPD employees told him
28 he did well for an “old guy.”

COMPLAINT Page -15-

 1 q. After his promotion, Capt. Barner told BRINDLEY that he needed to get over not
2 promoting until BRINDLEY retired.
3 r. In June 2017, Chief Paoletti told a corporal that the department simply had too many old
4 people in management and he needed the younger officers to test.
5 s. Older employees regularly received comments such as, “Well, weren’t you going to retire
6 anyway?” from Capt. Barner and many other coworkers.
7 t. One 20 year veteran police officer was told by Captain Barner when Officer Kinneavy complained

8 about how he was being treated “no one is going to listen to you.” “Your not a black female, a

9 homosexual, or any protected class so too bad”. That Officer is 43 years of age.

10 73. The harassing conduct from Defendants and each of them, was so severe, widespread, or persistent
11 that a reasonable person in Plaintiffs’ circumstances would have considered the work environment
12 to be hostile or abusive.
13 74. Plaintiffs considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive.
14 75. Defendants whether or not named or designated as a Doe, was (were) a supervisor with actual [or
15 reasonably perceived] authority over Plaintiffs and engaged in the harassing conduct against the
16 Plaintiffs.
17 76. Moreover, Defendants, whether or not named herein knew or should have known of the harassing
18 conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
19 77. Plaintiffs were harmed.
20 78. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
21 79. As a direct and legal result of the harassment, Plaintiffs suffered harm and injury that was legally
22 (proximately) caused by the conduct of the Defendants and each of them. Said harm and injury
23 includes but is not limited to special (economic) damages, General (non-economic) damages,
24 attorneys fees, litigation costs, future damages, and past damages. Damage to reputation. Lost
25 economic earning capacity in future employment endeavors. Also increased tax liability by having
26 recovery paid all at one time, rather than over a period of time, lost interest and investment
27 opportunities on money that is past due, and such further relief as shown at time of trial and in
28 excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court.

COMPLAINT Page -16-

 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FEHA RETALIATION
2 BY PLAINTIFFS WALLACE & COGLE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
3 80. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this
4 reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.
5 81. Each of the plaintiffs engaged in protected activities and opposed discrimination or harassment.
6 Thereafter, each of them were subjected to unwarranted adverse actions (as noted hereinabove and
7 below) in retaliation for their protected activities that resulted in harm to each of the plaintiffs.
8 Some additional examples follow:
9 82. At the August 29, 2019 meeting, WALLACE rebuffed and opposed Chief Schueller’s statements
10 about WALLACE retiring in 18 months and the agency needing “new blood.” After WALLACE’s
11 protected activity, he was passed over for promotion, stripped of a specialty assignment, given an
12 assignment meant for low-ranking employees, and suffered other adverse employment actions.
13 83. COGLE met with Chief Schueller in person within a week of the 2019 Lieutenant test results being
14 published. At the Redding Police Department it is expected, and typical, for those who were not
15 promoted to meet with command staff to discuss why they were denied promotion and what can be
16 done to improve their prospects in the future. COGLE expressed concerns with the testing process
17 and advised that he could not discern a legitimate basis for the promotions.
18 84. During their discussion of the testing process and the results, Schueller told COGLE that the
19 command staff needed new blood, and COGLE would be happy being the “senior sergeant” in
20 patrol.
21 85. Subsequent to his protected activities, COGLE has languished in Patrol, an assignment historically
22 meant to place older employees out to pasture, or as a learning experience for new and
23 inexperienced Sergeants. COGLE has been denied specialized assignments even though he is
24 significantly more qualified than the individuals who received those assignments. Moreover, RPD
25 command staff has routinely undercut and circumvented COGLE by directly communicating with
26 subordinates and seeking to marginalize COGLE.
27 86. Plaintiffs’ protected activities were a motivating reason behind Defendants’ adverse employment
28 actions.

COMPLAINT Page -17-

 1 87. Plaintiffs have been harmed and Defendants’ retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing
2 Plaintiffs’ harm as set forth above.
3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 FOR FAILURE TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION
5 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY ONLY
6 88. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this
7 reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.
8 89. Defendant had an obligation to take corrective action to prevent further harassment of Plaintiffs, but
9 failed to do so in violation of Cal. Gov. Code Sections 12940(k) and 12940(j)(1). Defendants
10 failed to conduct proper investigations, implement proper policies to prevent discrimination,
11 harassment or retaliation, and failed to properly punish those who engaged in misconduct to deter
12 further such actions in the future.
13 90. After Plaintiffs complained about and opposed the harassing, discriminatory, and retaliatory
14 conduct set forth above, Defendant CITY failed to conduct proper investigations, implement proper
15 policies to prevent discrimination, harassment or retaliation, and failed to take corrective action or
16 to properly punish those who engaged in misconduct, to deter further such actions.
17 91. As a direct and legal result of the conduct by Defendants towards Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have suffered
18 economic and non-economic damages in a sum according to proof at time of trial, and in excess of
19 the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.
20 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21 FOR VIOLATION OF THE PEACE OFFICERS BILL OF RIGHTS
22 BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS.
23 92. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this
24 reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.
25 93. Plaintiffs were entitled to protection under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights
26 Act, as a matter of statute, California Government Code Sections 3200 and 3300 et seq. and as a
27 result of direct agreements their employment agreement with defendants.
28 94. During the August 29, 2019 meeting, Chief Schueller told WALLACE that he hated these types of

COMPLAINT Page -18-

 1 meetings and began to tell WALLACE some concerns Schueller had about WALLACE’s
2 performance. Schueller claimed he had “heard” that WALLACE had not responded to some emails
3 in the past and had not completed some task associated with these emails. WALLACE asked who
4 Schueller heard this from and if he could give WALLACE specific examples of what he was
5 referring to.
6 95. Schueller could not provide WALLACE with who said anything and could not provide any
7 examples. Schueller then told WALLACE to start having one weekly briefing a month with his
8 School Resource Officers although he stated WALLACE meets with them in his office every day,
9 Schueller then stated he wanted WALLACE to come in once a month on his days off to meet with
10 the weekend supervisors. These were non-existent issues that Schueller could not explain and were
11 simply a pretext for discrimination. They also are a violation of the POBR.
12 96. This was the first time Schueller had mentioned any of this in the two years WALLACE worked for
13 him. This appeared to be an obvious pretext to not promote WALLACE in the upcoming Captain
14 test. These concocted “issues” and the delivery by Chief Schueller were highly unusual and without
15 any merit. Schueller refused and failed to provide any examples to support his claims. WALLACE
16 expressed that he felt this was strange as he had never heard any of this from Schueller previously.
17 It was no coincidence that this happened several days prior to the deadline for Captain applications.
18 WALLACE asked Chief Schueller if WALLACE was “wasting my time” in testing for Captain and
19 Schueller immediately stated, “No, you’re not and neither is Pete [BRINDLEY].” BRINDLEY was
20 never mentioned in this discussion prior to this. BRINDLEY like WALLACE is over 40, and was
21 older than the other candidates seeking promotion to Captain.
22 97. Exempt employees are allowed by their MOU to adjust their hours and somtimes leave early due to
23 the fact they do not receive overtime compensation and oftentimes work in excess of their
24 scheduled work hours. There were times BRINDLEY would leave early during the work week.
25 Yet, despite the accepted practice, BRINDLEY was called into Chief Schueller’s office before the
26 Captain’s promotional testing process. As a pretext, to help justify discrimination in the Captain’s
27 promotional process, Schueller said people were complaining that BRINDLEY was leaving early.
28 BRINDLEY asked who was complaining. Schueller said Chief Roger Moore was aware of the

COMPLAINT Page -19-

 1 leaving early issue, but did not explain how Moore allegedly knew this. Subsequently, BRINDLEY
2 was denied a flexible schedule even though others (younger than him) freely continued to use a
3 flexible schedule. BRINDLEY was denied any notice of any investigation, individuals interviewed,
4 and all other basic requirements under the Peace Officers Bill of Rights (POBRA) as required by
5 law if an employee is subject to an investigation that can lead to any discipline or loss of
6 employment benefits (including but not limited to lack of promotional opportunities.)
7 98. COGLE was subject to a pre-textual investigation conducted right before the Lieutenant testing
8 process. This investigation was carried out by two Sergeants who would ultimately test against
9 COGLE for the position of Lieutenant. Their candidacy for Lieutenant was already known at the
10 time the investigation took place. These two Sergeants interviewed every employee previously
11 under COGLE’s command and filtered this information back to the command staff. This
12 information was later used during the Lieutenant testing process to damage COGLE and elevate
13 one of the other Sergeants who was ultimately promoted. COGLE was the only candidate subject
14 to this investigation, was never notified of it, was never given a chance to review the alleged
15 information collected, and was never interviewed. COGLE only learned of the investigation after
16 the testing process was complete. Chief Schueller acknowledged information collected during the
17 investigation was discussed during the deliberation regarding COGLE’s Lieutenant prospects. Both
18 of the Sergeants who conducted this investigation were ultimately promoted to Lieutenant. In fact,
19 one of the Sergeants (now-Lt. Cole) told others that he used information from the secret
20 investigation against COGLE during the Lieutenant testing process.
21 99. POBRA is a management- employee regulation which protects all sworn Peace Officers in the State
22 of California, and requires among other things, that Due Process requirements are met. .
23 Specifically, the POBR protections found in Gov Code § 3305 and 3306 pertain to files with
24 adverse comments, or by analogy adverse actions based on secret investigations/files.
25 100. Adverse comments contained in a personnel investigation are subject to mandatory disclosure so
26 that an officer (at any rank) may respond. See e..g, Seligsohn v. Day (204) 121 Cal.App.4th 518;
27 County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 793, 802; Sacramento Police Officers
28 Assn. v. Venagas (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 916.

COMPLAINT Page -20-

 1 101. Where “punitive action” is imposed, the employee is entitled to notice of the proposed disciplinary
2 action, a statement of the reasons for the proposed disciplinary action, a copy of the charges and
3 materials on which the proposed discipline is based, and the right to respond, either orally or in
4 writing to proposed actions. The POBRA affords officers the right to administratively appeal
5 punitive actions, which includes written reprimands.
6 102. Government Code Section § 3309.5 provides as follows:
7 "Proceeding for violations of rights and protections
8 (a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety
9 officer the rights and protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter.
10 (b) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public
11 safety officer against any public safety department for alleged violations of this chapter. ...
12 (d) In addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by a superior
13 court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to acts taken
14 within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this chapter with the intent to
15 injure the public safety officer, the public safety department shall, for each and every violation,
16 be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to
17 the public safety officer whose right or protection was denied and for reasonable attorney's fees as
18 may be determined by the court. If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish
19 actual damages suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety
20 department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages. ..."
21 103. Plaintiffs thus seek all of their actual damages, civil penalties, litigation costs, attorneys fees, and
22 such other damages as are proven at court and in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court.
23
24
25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following:
26 1. Loss of earnings and back pay including any increased tax liability thereon;
27 2. Loss of future earnings, promotions, opportunities to promote, front pay and all other employment
28 benefits, such as pension rights;

COMPLAINT Page -21-