On Oct. 15, 2016, plaintiff Ennio Rocca, 39, a Hispanic lifeguard who held the position of California State Park Peace Officer Supervisor I, had his wedding held at Huntington State Beach, located in the city of Huntington Beach, in Orange County. It was the same state beach that he supervised as part of his job. Prior to the wedding, Rocca obtained a permit to hold the event at the state park. Later, at the wedding, Rocca and at least four of his co-workers, who were off-duty state park peace officers, took off their clothes and went skinny-dipping in the ocean. On Nov. 7, 2016, the California Department of Parks and Recreation started an internal investigation into a report of Rocca’s misconduct. In September 2017, Rocca was disciplined for his misconduct by having his salary reduced by 10 percent for three months, effective Nov. 1, 2017. Later, Rocca claimed he was denied state housing in around March 2018. Rocca sued his employer, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, alleging that his employer’s actions constituted race discrimination. Rocca’s counsel contended that Rocca and his co-workers were taking part in a lifeguard tradition of skinny-dipping in the ocean. However, counsel argued that Rocca was discriminated against due to his race, as none of the other off-duty officers, who were all white, were investigated or disciplined. Defense counsel denied there was such a “tradition” at the state park at the time of the incident. Counsel argued that the Department of Parks and Recreation had legitimate business reasons for its decisions that were not racially motivated. Defense counsel contended that Rocca was investigated and disciplined because Rocca was the holder of the permit and that guests of the wedding reported Rocca as being the peace officer seen engaged in the misconduct. Counsel also contended that none of Rocca’s wedding guests or co-workers were the supervisors of the subject beach and that Rocca was the supervisor. In addition, counsel contended that Rocca engaged in, and led, the nudity at the subject beach and that the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act prevented any investigation of witness peace officers once they were questioned as witnesses, and not subjects of incident. Defense counsel further argued that Rocca was not denied housing, but that the Department of Parks and Recreation classified the residence at issue based on operational needs and that as a result, Rocca did not apply for housing., Rocca claimed he suffers from emotional distress as a result of the alleged discrimination. Rocca sought recovery of damages for his past and future emotional pain and suffering.