Ex-LA sheriff pushes Ninth Circuit for second shot at suit over county's 'do not rehire' designation

LOS ANGELES (CN) — Former LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva asked the Ninth Circuit on Thursday to revive his lawsuit filed against the Board of Supervisors over his placement on a “do not rehire” list following his sole four-year-term in office.

Though he campaigned as a reformer, Villanueva tacked hard to the right once elected in 2018, refusing to enforce the county’s Covid-19 vaccination mandates and stonewalling investigations into deputy gangs. He became a frequent guest on Fox News and regularly railed against the Board of Supervisors and other elected officials in the region, whom he dismissed as the “woke left.” The approach did nothing to endear him to voters in the county, and he was defeated in 2022 by Robert Luna. His subsequent attempts at electoral politics — a run for Supervisor and a rematch against Luna, earlier this month — ended in similarly dismal defeats.

Villanueva sued the county in 2024, months after he was defeated in the primary by incumbent Supervisor Janice Hahn. In the federal complaint, he accused the five-member board, including Hahn, of defamation and of violating his First Amendment rights, saying they retaliated against him for his political views by placing him on a “do not rehire” list. That designation, he wrote, “severely affects, limits and otherwise precludes Villanueva’s employment opportunities in the county government, as well as directly and indirectly detrimentally affecting Villanueva’s employment prospects across the board.”

Though the complaint survived a motion to dismiss, it was defeated on motion for summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson found that Villanueva had supplied no evidence that the “do not rehire” notation affected him in any way.

Nor was there any evidence, the Ronald Reagan appointee found, that the oversight panel that imposed the “do not rehire” designation “acted because of his criticism of the Board of Supervisors. In fact, he brings no evidence that the panel members even knew about his criticism.”

The ex-sheriff appealed. On Thursday, his attorney, Alex DiBona, sought to fill in the gaps, telling the three-judge panel that Villanueva had wanted to serve as a consultant for either the city attorney’s office or for his old sheriff’s department, though he never formerly applied, as he was dissuaded by his “do not rehire” status. But even setting his supposed job aspirations aside, DiBona said, the designation also caused his client “reputational harm,” especially since Villanueva earned it after being accused of discrimination and harassment by two county employees.

“If you’re accused of discrimination and harassment, it’s a huge stigma and a huge blight on him,” DiBona said.

The two employees were the former inspector general of LA County, Max Huntsman, and a former Hahn Deputy, Esther Lim. Hunstman had been tasked with investigating Villanueva and his department, and the two publicly feuded. At one point, Villanueva referred to Hunstman as “Max-Gustaf,” an apparent effort to emphasize his German roots, and even accused Huntsman of being a Holocaust denier, though he never backed up the claim with any evidence.

“Falsely calling someone a Holocaust denier, that’s a serious blight to their reputation,” U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, a Donald Trump appointee, told DiBona. “Why isn’t this something that would warrant some discipline that they put in the file?”

“This was a political back-and-forth,” DiBona answered, playing down the feud. As to the independent investigation that found reason to believe Villanueva had acted inappropriately to both Huntsman and Lim, DiBona said, “I don’t believe it was a truly independent investigation.”

“There is evidence that the county itself had a clear bias toward Villanueva,” the lawyer added.

The county’s attorney, Ellie Ruth, pointed out that the individual claims of discrimination and harassment were merely pieces of evidence in an overall report. Had Villanueva still been employed by the county, he would have been disciplined; since he wasn’t, he was given the “do not rehire” designation.

“It’s Just a note for HR purposes — look at this prior history with these people,” Ruth explained.

When asked if such a notation didn’t cause someone reputational harm, Ruth said the designation was never intended to be made public.

“It would never have gone anywhere but the confidential file had [Villanueva] not told the LA Times about it during an interview,” she said.

As to whether the board had in some way ordered the “do not rehire” designation," Ruth said it was completely left out of the decision.

The panel — which included U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, another Trump appointee — took the matter under submission.

Follow @hillelaron