A sergeant already suing the San Diego Police Department on retaliation and discrimination claims is now fighting a termination notice, saying he is being singled out improperly and that officials did not follow the rules in trying to fire him.
Sgt. Arthur Scott, who is Black and has served the department for more than two decades, claims he is being retaliated against after testifying on behalf of another officer who claimed she was sexually harassed.
Scott was initially demoted to the Traffic Division amid an unspecified criminal investigation and was later told he was being fired, according to court records.
He sued the city in 2023 alleging he was retaliated against for testifying in of Nasira Johnson, who claimed in a 2019 lawsuit that she was wrongly groped by a senior officer and also subjected to inappropriate comments.
A jury found in 2022 that Johnson was subjected to unwanted harassment and that it was severe or pervasive, but also found that the city was not liable for the conduct.
Scott’s case was scheduled for a jury trial this summer but has now been delayed while Scott fights for his job.
His lawyers are asking a San Diego Superior Court judge to issue a court order stopping the termination on the grounds that department officials failed to follow the required protocols for terminating an employee.
“On the face of the Notice of Adverse Action, the identified timelines exceed the one-year statute of limitations to serve proposed discipline,” the request for a court order states.
A San Diego Police Department spokesperson declined to comment on the litigation, citing a city policy of not discussing pending or active lawsuits.
Scott claims in his 2023 lawsuit that department officials moved to fire him after he sued the city in 2015 — and lost — and after he testified against San Diego in Johnson’s lawsuit. In his initial case, he accused the city of retaliation and discrimination after he reported a cartoon depicting Black people as monkeys was used in a department training session.
“Plaintiff was not afforded damages in this (2015) lawsuit, but the jury did find that SDPD retaliated against him,” the 2023 legal complaint asserts.
“Afterward, without reason, Sgt. Scott was transferred to SDPD’s Central Division and denied a detective sergeant promotion,” the discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed in 2023 says.
According to the request to stop the proposed firing, Scott was first placed on istrative leave in 2022, shortly after his testimony in the Johnson case. He said he was not told what he had done wrong, other than he was being criminally investigated.
The District Attorney’s Office notified the San Diego City Attorney’s Office a year later that Scott would not be charged with perjury, the petition states.
At some point thereafter, Scott learned he was the subject of an istrative investigation conducted by an outside law firm. Early last year, he was provided the findings — which were not disclosed in the court filing.
“The investigation did not include when the istrative investigation started nor when the criminal investigation inquiry was initiated or by whom,” the petition says.
Lawyers on both sides of Scott’s pending retaliation and discrimination case have agreed to delay the trial until next year.
The city has not yet responded to the request for a court order stopping the termination plan.
