Lifeguard claims he was punished by LA County for his objections to the Pride flag

Christian Lifeguard’s Legal Battle Over Pride Flag Mandate

A Christian lifeguard from the Los Angeles County Fire Department is moving toward a trial after claiming he faced repercussions for his religious beliefs regarding a Pride flag mandate.

Capt. Jeffrey Little, who has spent 20 years with the department’s lifeguard division, filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County and several supervisors in 2024. This came after the county implemented a policy requiring the Progress Pride flag to be displayed at all county facilities throughout June, in recognition of LGBTQ Pride Month, beginning in 2023.

Little, a devout Christian, contended that this new policy conflicted with his beliefs about marriage and sexuality. He requested a religious accommodation that would allow him to avoid flying the flag personally or requiring his subordinates to do so. He initially received this accommodation from the county, but it was reportedly taken back just two days later.

After he removed some flags, Little was investigated and ultimately faced a suspension of 15 days without pay.

The county maintains that Little’s suspension was not due to his religious beliefs, but rather a violation of policy for taking down a government-issued Pride flag without the required permission.

Little’s attorney, Paul Jonah from the Thomas More Association, claimed that Little believed he was acting within the parameters of the accommodation provided to him. He mentioned that some lifeguard stations were not obligated to display the flag due to a lack of proper fasteners, according to the county’s own flag policy. Jonah added that other Pride flags had been removed from the station earlier for similar reasons.

The lawsuit alleges that Little experienced retaliation, harassment, and discrimination after he sought accommodations. The county disputes a claim that Lifeguard Division Chief Fernando Boitou told Little that “religious beliefs don’t matter.”

Jonah indicated that preparations for trial are in progress after a recent hearing. During that session, a federal judge issued a sealed judgment that partially granted and partially denied motions for summary judgment from both the county and Little.

Little is not aiming for the Pride flag policy to be overturned; he seeks a permanent accommodation that exempts him and others from being required to display the flag or instruct others to do so, along with restitution and the expungement of disciplinary actions from personnel records.

Jonah emphasized that preferential treatment for religious beliefs is mandated by law. He argued that the message communicated to Little and others in similar situations—that religious beliefs don’t count—is both unconstitutional and discriminatory.