The Los Angeles City Council has signed off on a settlement that wraps up a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought by Capt. Brian Pratt, a veteran LAPD commander who oversaw policing on Metro subway lines and buses. Pratt said he was punished after repeatedly warning that supervisors were assigning transit‑funded personnel to non‑transit work, a clash that led to court filings and a protective order. The council’s vote clears the way for the parties to finalize a deal the lawyers first reached in May.
What City Hall Approved
City paperwork authorizes up to $400,000 to resolve the case, including a $380,000 demand payable to the plaintiff's counsel and a $20,000 payroll draw to Capt. Pratt, as laid out in the City Council journal. The council adopted the motion on July 1 under Council File 26-0391, which details the fund transfers and authorizes the city attorney and controller to handle the payout mechanics.
Pratt's Allegations and Timeline
Pratt’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, asserts that beginning in early 2019 he repeatedly complained that Deputy Chief Blake Chow and Commander Michael Oreb were diverting MTA‑funded transit officers to assignments unrelated to Metro duties. He contends that a masked personnel complaint was filed in December 2019, that his name was added to the Officer and Recurrent Witness Information Tracking System in mid‑2020, and that the department later that year sustained an allegation and issued a reprimand, according to reporting on the case. Those points formed the backbone of the whistleblower claim as it moved through court and internal administrative channels.
How the Case Moved Through City Hall
The city attorney’s office routed the matter into the claims process, and the Budget & Finance Committee vetted the recommendation before it went to the full council, in line with standard procedures for settlements that involve payroll and trust‑account draws. Portions of the case were handled in closed session under state law, and the Claims Board materials show the litigation was on the city’s settlement calendar earlier this spring. Those steps set the schedule that brought the tentative May agreement to a formal council vote in July.
What It Means
The lawsuit was brought as a whistleblower claim under California Labor Code Section 1102.5, and the settlement ends the litigation while leaving larger questions about internal oversight and confidentiality unresolved. Court filings say Pratt is scheduled to be paid in August, according to MyNewsLA, and the council paperwork spells out how the city will move the money, combining a law‑firm trust demand with a payroll draw. The financial side of the fight is on track to close soon, even as debates over accountability and supervision continue to hover over the case.
