Lifeguard captain faces trial after suspension over Pride flag refusal on religious grounds

A veteran lifeguard captain with over two decades of service is heading to trial after being suspended for refusing to participate in Pride flag duties at Los Angeles County facilities. Captain Jeffrey Little, who serves in the L.A. County Fire Department’s Lifeguard Division, filed a lawsuit in 2024 against the county and several supervisors, claiming religious discrimination following his objection to a new policy requiring the Progress Pride flag to be displayed throughout June. The case has now moved forward after a federal judge issued a sealed ruling last week that partially granted and partially denied motions from both sides.

Little, who identifies as a devout Christian, argues the 2023 policy conflicts with his religious beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. He initially requested a religious accommodation that would exempt him from personally raising the flag or directing subordinates to do so. According to his legal team, the county granted this accommodation before revoking it just two days later. The subsequent events led to Little removing several Pride flags from lifeguard stations, an action that triggered an internal investigation and ultimately resulted in a 15-day suspension without pay.

County claims violation of department policy, not religious persecution

Los Angeles County maintains that Little’s suspension was not based on his religious beliefs but rather on unauthorized removal of government-issued flags and violation of established department protocols. County officials assert that the disciplinary action stemmed from Little’s decision to take down the flags without proper authorization, regardless of his personal convictions. The county disputes allegations that supervisors made disparaging remarks about Little’s faith during the controversy.

Paul Jonna, Little’s attorney from the Thomas More Society, counters that his client acted under the belief he was operating within the accommodation initially granted by the county. Jonna points out that some lifeguard stations were not required to fly the Pride flag due to insufficient flag clasps, in accordance with the county’s own flag policy. He notes that other Pride flags had been removed from stations earlier that month for the same technical reason without disciplinary consequences.

Allegations of unequal treatment and discriminatory remarks

The lawsuit contains serious allegations of retaliation, harassment, and discrimination following Little’s accommodation request. Central to the complaint is the claim that Lifeguard Division Chief Fernando Boiteux told Little that his “religious beliefs don’t matter,” a statement the county firmly disputes. Jonna argues this alleged remark demonstrates a pattern of hostility toward religious expression within the department.

Little’s legal team also highlights what they characterize as disparate treatment compared to other employees. According to Jonna, other lifeguards who “vandalized and desecrated” LGBTQ flags received either no discipline or shorter suspensions than Little, despite his attempt to follow proper channels for requesting a religious accommodation. The attorney emphasizes that Little went through official procedures rather than acting unilaterally.

• Little served more than 20 years in the Lifeguard Division before the controversy.
• The county adopted the Pride flag policy in 2023 for all facilities during June.
• Little’s accommodation was initially approved then revoked within two days.
• He received a 15-day unpaid suspension after removing flags from stations.
• Other employees allegedly received lighter discipline for similar actions.

Case advances to trial after partial summary judgment rulings

The legal battle entered a new phase following a hearing last week in federal court. The judge issued a sealed ruling that granted in part and denied in part both the county’s motion for summary judgment and Little’s motion for partial summary judgment. This decision means the case will proceed to trial, where both sides will present evidence and testimony regarding the discrimination and retaliation claims. The sealed nature of the ruling prevents public knowledge of which specific claims survived and which were dismissed at this stage.

Little’s legal strategy focuses on establishing that he followed proper procedures and that the county’s response violated his constitutional rights to religious expression. The defense will need to demonstrate that similarly situated employees received comparable treatment and that the flag policy was enforced consistently across all county facilities and personnel. The trial will likely examine internal communications, witness testimony from supervisors and fellow lifeguards, and documentation of the accommodation request process.

Lifeguard seeks permanent accommodation and damages

Little clarifies that he is not seeking to eliminate the county’s Pride flag policy entirely. His legal remedy focuses on obtaining a permanent religious accommodation that would exempt him from personally raising the flag or directing others to perform that duty. Additionally, he seeks monetary damages for the unpaid suspension period and removal of all disciplinary findings from his personnel file. The captain maintains that his request represents a reasonable accommodation that would not impose undue hardship on county operations.

Jonna frames the case within broader constitutional protections for religious expression, arguing that federal and state law requires favored treatment for religious beliefs in the workplace. He characterizes the county’s alleged message that religious beliefs “don’t matter” as clearly unconstitutional and discriminatory. The attorney contends that denying such accommodations sets a dangerous precedent for government employees who hold traditional religious views on marriage and sexuality.

The L.A. County Fire Department did not provide comment when contacted about the ongoing litigation. The case joins a growing number of disputes nationwide involving conflicts between LGBTQ pride initiatives and religious accommodation requests in government workplaces. As the trial date approaches, both sides are preparing arguments that will test the boundaries of religious freedom protections in public employment and the extent to which government entities must accommodate employees’ faith-based objections to workplace policies.