PASADENA, Calif. — A former Pasadena police officer who filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit against the City of Pasadena has lost her case at the trial court level and has been ordered to pay $40,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs after the court dismissed all of her claims.
According to the City of Pasadena, the Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed every claim brought by former probationary officer Taisyn Crutchfield on February 13, 2026, concluding there was no or insufficient evidence to support her allegations. The court later ordered Crutchfield to pay $40,000 in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs on June 3, 2026.
Background of the Lawsuit
Crutchfield filed suit in 2024 alleging:
- Race discrimination
- Gender discrimination
- Harassment
- Retaliation
- Constructive termination
The lawsuit followed a February 20, 2023 incident involving an interaction between another Pasadena police officer and members of the public near the Pasadena Police Department. Crutchfield alleged the incident and subsequent employment actions reflected racial bias within the department.
She later voluntarily resigned from the department while the litigation was pending, asserting she had effectively been forced from her position.
Court Grants Summary Judgment
According to the City of Pasadena’s description of the court’s ruling, the trial court dismissed all causes of action after finding no or insufficient evidence supporting Crutchfield’s claims.
The city reported that the court found it had presented “significant” and, in other instances, “substantial” evidence showing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the employment decisions challenged in the lawsuit, including decisions involving Pasadena Police Chief Eugene Harris.
CLICK HERE to get your copy of
Court Awards Attorneys’ Fees
Following dismissal of the lawsuit, the court ordered Crutchfield to pay the City of Pasadena $40,000 in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.
According to the city’s statement, the court found that following Chief Harris’ second deposition, Crutchfield’s continued prosecution of the lawsuit was “frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.” The city attributed that characterization to the court’s findings.
Court Addresses Credibility Findings
The City of Pasadena also reported that the trial court made findings concerning Crutchfield’s credibility during the litigation.
According to the city’s release, the court found she had been “untruthful” in pursuing the lawsuit.
The city further stated that the court found Crutchfield made public allegations during an April 2, 2024 televised news conference accusing Chief Harris of sexual harassment, including claims that she was punished after refusing alleged advances.
According to the city, the court found that during a subsequent deposition approximately one month later, Crutchfield admitted under oath that those specific public statements alleging sexual harassment were not truthful. Those findings were cited by the city as part of the court’s reasoning discussed in its public announcement.
Earlier Public Allegations
When Crutchfield first publicly raised allegations against the department in late 2023, the City of Pasadena denied the accusations.
At that time, city officials stated they believed the factual allegations were inaccurate and said they intended to vigorously defend against the claims.
Current Status
- All claims brought by Taisyn Crutchfield have been dismissed at the trial court level.
- The court ordered Crutchfield to pay the City of Pasadena $40,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Chief Eugene Harris remains Chief of the Pasadena Police Department.
- As of the latest publicly available reporting, it is unclear whether Crutchfield intends to appeal the rulings.
- Crutchfield could not immediately be reached for comment following the dismissal and fee award, according to published reporting.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the lawsuit dismissed?
According to the City of Pasadena’s summary of the court’s ruling, the court found no or insufficient evidence supporting the claims and concluded the city had demonstrated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment decisions.
Why was the former officer ordered to pay attorneys’ fees?
According to the city, the court concluded that continued prosecution of the lawsuit was “frivolous, unreasonable or groundless,” resulting in an award of $40,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to the city.
Has the case been appealed?
As of the latest publicly available information, no appeal has been confirmed. Published reports indicate it remains unclear whether Crutchfield intends to seek appellate review.
Need an Independent Review of a Police-Related Incident?
If you are a police officer, attorney, government agency, or citizen involved in a police-related incident and need an independent standards review, expert consultation, body camera analysis, or case evaluation, Cop Talk LIVE provides objective incident assessments based on training, policy, accepted police practices, and established legal standards.
Whether the issue involves use of force, officer conduct, citizen complaints, internal investigations, traffic stops, arrests, or critical incidents, each case is reviewed on its facts and evidence.
To request a confidential consultation or case review, visit https://coptalklive.org and submit your case through our intake form.
🚔 The Conversation Continues with Cop Talk LIVE Insider Access! CLICK HERE: https://www.patreon.com/c/coptalklive/membership
About The Author
Discover more from Cop Talk LIVE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
