Case Background
La-Kebbia Wilson worked for the City of Fresno from around 2004. She had a prior history with the City that stretched back years before this lawsuit. She previously filed a federal lawsuit against the City, which ended in a settlement agreement and a dismissal with prejudice. She also filed an earlier complaint about a supervisor named Lacy, received a layoff notice around July 2014, and was eventually rehired as a Community Revitalization Specialist. Charles Smith joined the City in October 2016 as a Services Aide and was reclassified as a Community Revitalization Technician in April 2018. Both Wilson and Smith worked in the same department and reported to overlapping management.
The two Plaintiffs filed their complaint in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case went through several pretrial rulings, including a September 2020 Court order that narrowed the claims before the matter proceeded toward trial. By the time it reached a jury in early 2026, the remaining claims centered on race discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and the City's alleged failure to prevent a hostile work environment. The jury returned its verdict on March 11, 2026.
Cause
Wilson and Smith sued the City of Fresno for racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under both California and federal law. The lawsuit arose from a series of adverse employment actions the Plaintiffs said the City took against Wilson because of her race, and against both Wilson and Smith because they reported and opposed what they believed were unlawful workplace practices. The City denied all wrongdoing and maintained it acted for legitimate business reasons throughout.
Injury
Wilson alleged she received a Letter of Reprimand in August 2018 and became the subject of a personnel investigation conducted by an investigator named Selling. She was also placed on administrative leave while that investigation was ongoing. She said management, including supervisor Lacy and others, subjected her to conduct that created a hostile, intimidating, and abusive work environment. She further alleged that despite her complaints to management, including to supervisors Clark and Cuevas, the City failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment and discrimination.
Smith alleged he witnessed harassing conduct in his immediate work environment and was himself subjected to harassment because of his association with Wilson and because he opposed the same unlawful practices. He was transferred to the tire team, which he contended was a retaliatory move. He eventually resigned from the City.
Damages Sought
Both Plaintiffs sought non-economic damages for the emotional distress, humiliation, and harm to their dignity caused by the City's conduct. Wilson also sought compensation for the reputational and personal harm flowing from the hostile work environment and retaliatory employment actions she faced over several years.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): La-Kebbia Wilson and Charles Smith
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Gary G. Goyette, Esq. | Rachel Simons, Esq. | Bruce J. Berger, Esq. | Kevin Michael Schwin
Defendant(s): City of Fresno
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Douglas T. Sloan | Francine M. Kanne | James B. Betts | Joseph D. Rubin | Mandy Louise Jeffcoach
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Wilson and Smith brought their lawsuit under multiple overlapping federal and state laws. The state claims arose under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prohibits racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace, as well as an employer's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent such conduct. The federal claims proceeded under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mirrors FEHA protections at the federal level, and under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983. Wilson also brought a retaliation claim under California Labor Code Section 1102.5, the state whistleblower protection statute, arguing that she reported unlawful acts and the City retaliated against her for doing so. Both Plaintiffs also alleged slander, negligence, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress under California law, though many of those additional claims were dismissed by the Court in a September 2020 ruling before the case went to trial.
The Plaintiffs argued that race played a substantial motivating role in the City's decision to issue Wilson a Letter of Reprimand in August 2018 and to launch the Selling personnel investigation against her. They said the work environment management created, through a pattern of targeting Wilson and failing to respond to her complaints, amounted to unlawful harassment and a hostile workplace. On the retaliation side, the Plaintiffs said the City specifically moved against Wilson and Smith because they had spoken out against discrimination and filed complaints with the City and the EEOC.
Defense
The City of Fresno denied all material allegations in the complaint. The City argued it acted for legitimate, independent business reasons unrelated to race. It raised numerous affirmative defenses, including that Wilson and Smith failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that various governmental immunities barred the claims, that the City exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassing conduct, that the Plaintiffs failed to take advantage of corrective opportunities the City made available, and that any damages should be offset against compensation the Plaintiffs received from other sources. The City also argued the same employment decisions would have been made regardless of the Plaintiffs' protected activity.
On the Selling investigation, the City acknowledged that investigator Selling knew defense attorney Betts, that they worked in the same building, and that Betts had represented the City in Wilson's first lawsuit. The City denied, however, that this created any improper bias in the investigation's outcome. The City also acknowledged the personnel investigation resulted in a memorandum to Wilson from management, but denied the investigation was tainted or racially motivated.
Jury Verdict
After trial, the jury returned its verdict on March 11, 2026, and the Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs the same day. The case was marked closed.
Wilson's Claims
On Wilson's FEHA racial discrimination claim, the jury found that her race was a substantial motivating reason behind the August 2018 Letter of Reprimand and the Selling personnel investigation. The jury did not find the same with respect to being placed on administrative leave during the investigation. Importantly, the jury also found the City failed to prove it would have taken those same actions even if Wilson's race had played no role, which meant the City's same-decision defense failed on both the reprimand and the investigation.
On Wilson's FEHA harassment claim, the jury found in her favor, concluding she faced a work environment that was hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive based on her race or in retaliation for protected activity. The jury also found the City failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment.
On Wilson's FEHA retaliation claim, the jury found her opposition to unlawful employment practices and her filing of a discrimination complaint motivated the City's decision to issue the Letter of Reprimand and to conduct the Selling investigation. Again, the City's same-decision defense failed on both actions.
On Wilson's Title VII racial discrimination claim, the jury similarly found her race motivated both the reprimand and the investigation, and the City again could not prove the same-decision defense. The jury found in Wilson's favor on the Title VII hostile work environment claim as well, concluding management knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective remedial action. Wilson also prevailed on her Title VII retaliation claim. On Wilson's Labor Code Section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claim, the jury found the City retaliated against her through both the reprimand and the investigation, and the City failed to establish it would have taken those actions for legitimate, independent reasons.
Smith's Claims
On Smith's FEHA harassment claim, the jury found he proved that he personally witnessed harassing conduct in his immediate work environment or was subjected to harassment because of his association with Wilson or his own protected activity, and that the harassment created a hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive work environment. However, the jury did not find the City failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment against Smith.
On Smith's FEHA retaliation claim, the jury found the City transferred Smith to the tire team in retaliation for his opposition to unlawful employment practices or his filing of a discrimination complaint. The City failed to show the transfer would have happened regardless of Smith's protected activity. Smith did not prevail on claims related to constructive discharge or the City's failure to rehire him after he resigned. Smith also prevailed on his Title VII retaliation claim.
Damages Awarded
The jury awarded Wilson $15,000,000 in non-economic damages and awarded Smith $400,000 in non-economic damages. Judgment was entered by the Court in favor of the Plaintiffs in accordance with the jury's verdict on March 11, 2026.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
