An appeals court has backed the City of Palo Alto in a closely watched fight over a Black Lives Matter street mural outside City Hall, rejecting claims from six police officers who argued the artwork turned their workplace into a hostile environment. The mural, painted along Hamilton Avenue in the summer of 2020, included a portrait of Assata Shakur inside one of the letters. This detail quickly became the lightning rod in a conflict that split local officials and residents. The new ruling upholds a judge’s earlier dismissal and effectively closes the book on the officers’ lawsuit.
A three-judge panel concluded that nothing in the mural explicitly embraces any racist or harassing message and agreed with Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette Pennypacker’s July 2024 decision, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post. The officers had argued that the imagery and symbols in the mural were aimed at non-Black officers and interfered with their ability to do their jobs. The appellate court found that the artwork was open to interpretation and did not rise to the level of the persistent, pervasive harassment they described.
How the mural came to be
The City Council commissioned a temporary “Black Lives Matter” street painting on Hamilton Avenue in the summer of 2020, part of a broader wave of public art that followed the murder of George Floyd. The piece stretched roughly 245 feet and stood 17 feet tall, according to The Washington Post. Each letter in the phrase was handled by a different artist.
The lawsuit and officers' claims
Six officers, Eric Figueroa, Michael Foley, Christopher Moore, Robert Parham, Julie Tannock and later David Ferreira, sued the city in June 2021. They alleged discrimination, harassment and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, citing reporting and court records. The officers said that the portrait and certain symbols in the mural made them fear being targeted at work and that the situation caused stress and medical issues for some of them. One officer told the court his PTSD worsened and that he later took a medical retirement. The city consistently argued that the mural qualified as protected expression, and the Palo Alto Daily Post reports that the council spent about $575,000 on outside legal defense in the case.
Legal context and what it means
Judge Pennypacker found that the mural was not directed at the officers and did not interfere with their work, concluding that discomfort alone did not meet the legal bar for workplace harassment. The appeals court agreed, pointing to the surrounding text and imagery, including the call for mutual support next to the portrait, as evidence that the artwork did not endorse violence against police. Together, the rulings highlight the line courts are trying to draw between shielding employees from discrimination and safeguarding public art and political expression.
With the Court of Appeal affirming the lower court, Palo Alto has now prevailed at the appellate level, and the officers face a much steeper climb unless they ask the California Supreme Court to step in. The decision is expected to weigh on how Palo Alto and other cities handle sanctioned public art and community outreach when the subject matter is guaranteed to stir strong reactions.
