A Fresno County jury concluded on Monday that the city of Parlier was wrong when it fired its police chief.

Jose Garza served as Parlier police chief from 2017 until his firing in 2021. He said the city council let him go after he refused to call off an investigation of a city employee for embezzlement.

He sued for retaliation in 2021. The civil trial started earlier this month.

“I feel a big relief,” Garza told GV Wire after the verdict. “The truth that Mayor Alma Beltran and former city manager Sonia Hall retaliated against me for trying to stop a investigation, which I wouldn’t. And because of that, I was fired and the truth came out today. So I’m very, very happy.”

The 10-female, two-male jury took parts of two days to deliberate in the 10-day trial. The jury sided with Garza, awarding him his request for $1 million— $200,000 for economic damages and $800,000 for pain, suffering, and other consequences.

Garza has since taken a job as police chief with the city of Coalinga. He said his firing harmed his reputation and that of the Parlier Police Department.

“It really put a damage or tarnish to the integrity of the chief’s office and the credibility of the police department, and that’s the sad part,” Garza said.

Parlier Mayor Reacts

Beltran said the verdict “was a sad day for the city of Parlier.” She complained that the judge did not allow the city to present certain evidence — such as the fact that the chief did not exhaust all legal remedies before suing.

The city council will meet on Thursday to determine what course of action it will take next, including a possible appeal.

During the trial, Garza’s attorney showed the jury a letter from the city manager calling for an end to the investigation.

“It’s unfortunate that we get targeted and we try to make sure that everybody follows the letter of the law … and I’m not saying that we did tell him to do that because we never did. I know that I’m fully aware that I never said anything like that,” Beltran told GV Wire after the verdict.

Beltran said she voted not to renew Garza’s contract because “he was refusing to work with us,” specifically, he refused to work without a contract. At the time, the city was seeking voter approval for a parcel tax to help pay for law enforcement services. Measure Q passed.

“He really didn’t care about my community and cared more about his contract,” Beltran said.

She said the city may not be able to afford the $1 million damages.

“He’s not caring about the community he said he cared about. It’s a disadvantaged community. We only have $5 million in our general fund. Three million (dollars) goes towards our police department. And if we have to pay a million to him and who knows how much on attorney fees, I’m already preparing to say that we might have to reduce our our police department because that is something we cannot afford,” she said.

Watch The Verdict

Neal Costanzo, defense counsel for the city of Parlier, immediately motioned for a mistrial based on incomplete jury instructions. Judge Jonathan Skiles immediately denied the request.

Related Story: After Long Drawn-Out Drama, Parlier Fires City Attorney Costanzo

Garza: City Leaders Interfered in Embezzlement Investigation

Garza alleged that then-City Manager Sonia Hall and Beltran tried to interfere with Garza’s investigation. He hired a third-party firm to look into the matter. He testified he did so to preserve transparency and independence.

In a memo, Hall wrote to the investigator, Dennis Montejano, that he should “stop all work on the investigation and provide me with whatever you have generated.”

She also wrote that city officials should not talk to the Fresno County District Attorney’s office.

Garza’s attorney said Hall and Beltran did not want the investigation to focus on one particular person, whom the plaintiff said was a friend of Beltran’s.

On March 18, 2021, the city council voted not to renew Garza’s contract, but he remained as chief. On March 30, 2021, Garza wrote a letter to councilmembers, complaining that Beltran and the human resources director “continuously interfered through micromanagement and undermining my authority and leadership.”

On April 5, 2021, Hall notified Garza he was being removed as chief, based on an April 1, 2021 city council closed session vote. Hall said the March 30 letter was the cause, citing “incompatibility of management styles.”

The DA’s office ultimately decided not to file charges in the embezzlement case.

Related Story: Is This Any Way to Run a City? Parlier Council Squabbles Lead to Police Report, ...

Mayor Takes the Stand

Beltran testified on behalf of the defendant city for two days last week.

Garza’s attorney, Alan Romero, asked if investigating embezzlement was a high priority. Beltran said yes. Romero then asked about her knowledge of a Jan. 29, 2021, letter from then-City Manager Hall to the third-party investigator of the embezzlement allegations.

“This was being handled by the city manager and our city attorney. Again, we don’t give legal opinions. We don’t interfere with that. We have staff that are the ones that decide what route or what to do or what to recommend,” Beltran testified.

Beltran said she and the city council followed their attorney’s recommendation.

One argument made by Garza was that Beltran interfered with his future employment as Coalinga police chief.

Romero asked Beltran about communication with then-Coalinga City Councilmember Adam Adkisson.

Beltran said her communications with the city of Coalinga was related to the 911 dispatch contract and not regarding Garza’s employment as chief. Beltran said as Coalinga’s police chief, he would have control of the contract between the two cities.

She testified that she was concerned that Garza may increase the rates Parlier paid.

“It was going to be a high concern for me because we have a former chief that left that was very upset with the city of Parlier. So, of course, it’s going to come across my mind what is he going to do with our contract?” Beltran said.

Romero also questioned Beltran whether finances really played a role in Garza’s firing. Beltran referred to Measure Q, a June 2021 parcel tax measure Parlier voters passed for public safety. In prior elections, voters rejected the public safety tax.

She also testified why she was offended that Garza sent an email to other county law enforcement leaders about his firing. Beltran later posted that email after Garza filed the retaliation lawsuit.

“Because it’s my community. They saw the news and they were all questioning it. I was getting phone calls. Like, what? What? What happened? Why are we getting sued?”

Jury Foreperson Perspective

Jessica Sanchez of Clovis served as the jury foreperson. She said evidence supporting Garza’s case helped shape her vote.

Particularly, she mentioned an email exchange between Garza and then-City Attorney Neal Costanzo — who still represented the city on the case despite being removed of his main duties over the summer.

“The email between the plaintiff and the the previous attorney talking about the the counsel’s opinions about an open investigation and how that relates to his contract. I feel like what that spelled out in the documents was kind of the nail in the coffin for the defense,” Sanchez said.

Serving on her first jury, she said it was hard at first not to speak to any other jurors until deliberations.’

“I think it was it was good that we weren’t able to speak and share opinions until we all came together at the end, because each of us was able to pick out details and and see little things that when we finally came together, I feel like justice was finally served,” Sanchez said.

The jury answered seven questions as part of its deliberation — the key question asking if Garza’s refusal to stop the investigation was the contributing factor to his removal. The jury unanimously said yes.

The jury was not unanimous in how much to award. But in the civil trial, only nine of the 12 jurors are required to support the verdict.