Sgt. Gregory Hoskins, a longtime Los Angeles police sergeant, has quietly brought a long-running legal fight with the City of Los Angeles to a close after alleging he was passed over for a SWAT sergeant slot because of race and prior lawsuits. Court filings indicate the matter is resolved but give no details about what, if anything, the city agreed to.
As reported by MyNewsLA, Hoskins, who has held the rank of sergeant since 2003, filed a second suit in June 2022 and represented himself in the Los Angeles Superior Court action. On March 25, the City Attorney’s Office filed papers with Judge Michael Small, noting the case was resolved, while keeping any settlement terms out of the public filing.
What the suit says
The 2022 complaint states that Hoskins completed a physical fitness test and an interview for two open SWAT sergeant positions in 2021 but was not selected, even though the suit alleges he was the most qualified candidate, according to reporting by City News Service. The filing frames the selections as retaliatory, tying them to a 2010 lawsuit in which Hoskins alleged race discrimination after being denied a SWAT role. The complaint also alleges Lt. Ruben Lopez, who testified for the city in the earlier trial, repeatedly said Hoskins could never work in SWAT after suing.
Court records and discovery
A tentative ruling dated May 29, 2024, shows Judge Michael Small granted Hoskins’ Pitchess motion to allow the court to review potentially relevant LAPD personnel files in camera, including interview score sheets, performance evaluations, and any internal affairs interviews for the officers chosen over him, according to public court records. The ruling in case no. 22STCV18029 found that those materials could be material to a FEHA retaliation claim and ordered the records brought to the court for inspection. The order underscored how access to internal files can be central to proving or disproving allegations of favoritism and retaliation in promotion disputes.
Why it matters
The Hoskins case joins a string of recent lawsuits and court battles over SWAT promotions and unit culture, and it follows other recent rulings ordering review of personnel files and a large jury award against the city in related litigation, suggesting a pattern of contested promotions within the unit. MyNewsLA has covered several of those disputes, which plaintiffs say have real financial and career consequences, from lost overtime and on-call pay to diminished post-retirement prospects.
Legal notes
Hoskins' claims were brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which bars employment discrimination and retaliation and allows employees of public agencies to seek damages and other relief, according to the California Civil Rights Department. Remedies in FEHA cases can include back pay, lost overtime, and injunctive changes to hiring practices, though settlements often remain confidential. The Pitchess discovery process is particularly important in policing cases because it gives judges a path to examine personnel files that might show a pattern of bias or misconduct.
Because the city filed a notice of resolution, the public record for this dispute now ends without clarity on whether Hoskins received money, reinstatement, or changes to LAPD promotion policies. For officers and the public watching how SWAT selection works, the settlement closes this chapter while leaving broader questions about promotions and accountability unanswered.
