Federal judge tosses suit ex-Sheriff Alex Villanueva brought over ‘do not rehire’ designation

A federal judge has tossed a lawsuit brought by former Sheriff Alex Villanueva against Los Angeles County over a “do not rehire” notation that was placed in his personnel file after an oversight panel said he discriminated against and harassed two county employees.

The federal lawsuit filed in June had, among other things, accused the county of defaming Villanueva and violating his due process rights when officials “secretly” investigated him without giving him a chance to respond to the accusations.

Lawyers for the county said in court filings that Villanueva had been told of the investigations and refused to be interviewed for them unless he was given the questions in advance.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson granted the county’s request to dismiss the case, saying Villanueva hadn’t shown how the “do not rehire” designation had actually harmed him, as he hadn’t provided any evidence he’d been denied a job because of it.

Still, Villanueva’s attorney framed the decision as a win, pointing out that the judge addressed only some of the former sheriff’s claims and left open the possibility that Villanueva’s legal team could refile the case — which he said they planned to do.

“We are pleased with and fully respect Judge Wilson’s order from yesterday,” attorney Carney Shegerian wrote in an email to The Times. “Our client, former Sheriff Villanueva, is on the side of right and we are confident the law will provide remedies for the wrongs defendants committed against him.”

Jason Tokoro, a partner at the Miller Barondess law firm acting as outside counsel for the county, also framed the decision as a win.

“We appreciate the Court’s ruling and that it agreed with our arguments across the board in rejecting the allegations former Sheriff Villanueva made in his lawsuit,” Tokoro said in an emailed statement. “Although he accused the County of putting him on the ‘Do Not Rehire’ list unfairly, the facts showed otherwise, and it was for these reasons the Court dismissed the case.”

The allegations at the center of the suit date from early 2022, when Inspector General Max Huntsman accused Villanueva, who was still sheriff at the time, of making a “racially based attack” and “dog whistling to the extremists he caters to” when he repeatedly referred to the inspector general by his foreign-sounding birth name, Max-Gustaf. Not long after that, Villanueva also accused Huntsman of being a Holocaust denier. He did not provide any evidence for that claim, and Huntsman denied it.

Around the same time that Huntsman filed his complaint, Esther Lim — then a justice deputy for county Supervisor Hilda Solis — filed a complaint accusing Villanueva of targeting and harassing women of color.

Pointing to comments the former sheriff made on Facebook livestreams, Lim alleged a pattern of age discrimination and harassment of Asian women.

According to the county, Villanueva was notified in June 2022 that he was the subject of an investigation by the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau. A few weeks later, an investigator interviewed Huntsman and Lim.

After that, Villanueva alleged in court filings, the case was shelved because the Internal Affairs Bureau determined he hadn’t violated any policies. He said the inquiry wasn’t reopened until late 2023, after he’d been voted out of office as sheriff and announced his candidacy for county supervisor.

On Sunday, a lawyer for the county said the assertion that the case had been shelved was untrue. The county’s court filings describe a case that was still active in early 2023, when Villanueva emailed an investigator in response to certified letters she’d sent, trying to reach him.

“I will ask you to submit your question in writing, after providing a brief description of what the allegations are,” he wrote, according to copies of the emails attached to court filings. When the investigator told him that was not the standard practice, Villanueva questioned the optics of investigating a former sheriff, said he was “not concerned” about standard practice and noted that he was “more than happy” to cooperate but only on his own terms.

The two went back and forth by email for several weeks before Villanueva sent the investigator a final email asserting that she had “no jurisdiction” to interview him and calling her terms “unethical and unacceptable.”

The department went on to complete its investigation and sent it to the County Equity Oversight Panel, which met in October of last year and sustained some of the complaints in both cases, ultimately recommending the former sheriff be deemed ineligible for rehire.

Then, Villanueva said, he heard nothing further from the county about the complaints or their outcome until The Times published an article about it early this year. Afterward, according to his court filings, he reached out to a former Sheriff’s Department chief who allegedly told him the case had been shelved and later reopened.

In May, he filed a claim letter notifying the county he planned to sue for $25 million and asking officials to rescind the “do not rehire” designation. When he filed suit in June, the complaint accused the county of defamation, intentionally causing him emotional distress and violating his free speech and due process rights.

According to Friday’s decision, Villanueva and his legal team have two weeks to refile their case.

Though Lim did not offer comment on the outcome, Huntsman said the case showed the need for robust oversight of the Sheriff’s Department.

“The court opinion speaks for itself,” he told The Times. “The fact that Villanueva was able to suppress any response to his conduct while sheriff demonstrates that LASD will always need strong external investigations to prevent corruption.”