Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—S.D. Cal.: Employee failed to show causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment actions, (Sep 17, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

The employee had to show protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two.

A police officer sued the city that employed him and several city officials, alleging that they retaliated against him after his attorney complained that the city’s failure to pay him a premium associated with a Range Master assignment violated federal and state law. A federal district court in California granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that while the officer’s claims were not preempted or precluded by Section 301 of the LMRA, he failed to establish the required causal connection between his protected complaint and the adverse employment actions because the record did not show that the officials responsible for those actions knew about the protected complaint (Sonico v. City of Brawley, No. 3:25-cv-00515-BAS-LR, (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2026)).

Range master position. The employee was a police officer employed by the City of Brawley and a member of the Brawley Public Safety Employees Association. The association had entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the city providing a 2.5-percent base-pay premium to an employee filling a Range Master position. In June 2024, the officer learned that he had been selected to serve as a Range Master, but he did not receive the anticipated pay increase. After bringing up the discrepancy to several city employees, the officer’s attorney emailed the city’s human resources administrator and city manager concerning the unpaid premium, citing the MOU as well as state and federal law. Two days later, the officer was removed from the Range Master position. He subsequently received two written reprimands in August 2024 and a negative performance evaluation in March 2025. The city ultimately terminated his employment in April 2025.

The employee sued the city and several city officials asserting retaliation under Section 215(a)(3) of the FLSA and Section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code. He alleged that the city retaliated against him for complaining about the unpaid Range Master premium by removing him from the position, withholding premium pay, disciplining him, negatively evaluating his performance, and ultimately terminating him. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were preempted or precluded by Section 301 of the LMRA and, alternatively, that the employee could not establish retaliation.

LMRA preemption. The court first rejected the defendants’ contention that Section 301 of the LMRA barred the retaliation claims, noting that the LMRA’s definition of an employer excludes states and political subdivisions. The City of Brawley was a political subdivision of California, and its employees were public employees, the court held. Accordingly, the MOU between the city and the employee association could not constitute a collective bargaining agreement within the meaning of Section 301. Moreover, even assuming the MOU could qualify as a collective bargaining agreement, the retaliation claims did not require the court to interpret it. Although the employee’s underlying complaint sought premium pay provided by the MOU, his retaliation claims concerned whether the defendants subsequently acted against him because he complained. That inquiry turned on the defendants’ motives rather than the meaning of the MOU, the court explained.

Retaliation. Regarding the FLSA retaliation claim, the employee had to show protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two. The parties did not dispute that the attorney’s email constituted protected activity or that the officer subsequently suffered adverse employment actions; the dispute centered on causation. The court explained that FLSA retaliation requires the adverse action to have occurred “but for” the protected activity, and an employer’s awareness of that activity is essential to establishing the causal link.

The employee could not make that showing. The human resources administrator received the attorney’s email, but the allegedly retaliatory conduct attributed to her occurred before it was sent. Although the other individual defendants took actions afterward, the record did not establish that they knew about the email or the employee’s invocation of the FLSA. Evidence that they knew generally about the employee’s request for Range Master pay was insufficient because those earlier complaints did not constitute the protected activity at issue. Because the employee likewise failed to show that other city employees responsible for discipline, evaluation, or termination knew about the protected complaint, the FLSA claim against the city failed. The employee’s claim under California labor laws failed for essentially the same reason.

Accordingly, the court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 3:25-cv-00515-BAS-LR.

Judge: Bashant, C.

Attorneys: Sydney R. Romaine (Ferrone Law Group) for Paul Sonico. Kevin Borgen (Kahana & Feld) for City of Brawley.

Companies: City of Brawley

Cases: Retaliation WageHour StateLawClaims CaliforniaNews