A Honolulu police officer is suing the city and several of his supervisors, claiming that they retaliated against him after he complained about officers being allowed to go home early and still get paid for the rest of their shift.

Cpl. George Martin, who works in the Waianae District, also claims his supervisors didn’t keep his name confidential after he reported the activity and instead discussed his complaints with other officers, resulting in his mental anguish and stress while on the job.

On Wednesday, the Honolulu Police Commission began deliberating on whether to provide legal representation for the three officers named as defendants in Martin’s suit. A decision was not made.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in October, Martin complained about unnecessary special assignments and "slide time," where officers were allegedly allowed to leave hours before the end of their shift, allowing them to be paid for time they did not actually work.

The defendants are Maj. Raymond Ancheta, the previous commander of the Kapolei/Waianae district, and two officers still in the district, Lt. Farrel Sojot and Sgt. Randall Arakaki.

Martin claims that before Ancheta was district commander, he complained about slide time and Ancheta’s predecessor put a stop to it. But under Ancheta’s watch, the practice was revived and frequently used.

It was permitted by Sojot and encouraged by Arakaki, the suit says.

In November 2011, Martin complained to a district captain about the slide time and about officers being put on special assignments when there are no operations requiring such assignments. Martin said the slide time and special assignments were unfair to other officers who had to do extra work because of a diminished staff.

The captain asked Martin to provide him with names and dates so he could investigate. Martin sent the captain an email containing a list of dates and witnesses, which was shared with Ancheta and passed down to Sojot and Arakaki.

Martin claims that after Sojot received the email, he held a meeting with district sergeants and asked them to provide information on possible wrongdoing by Martin, so Sojot could start an investigation against Martin.

Upon learning of the retaliation, Martin complained to the Honolulu Ethics Commission and HPD’s Professional Standards Office, but his case was referred back to his district supervisors.

Martin said he was treated differently after he complained. He was assigned more desk duty, officers began to ignore him or treat him negatively, and he was required to sign out at the Kapolei station at the end of his shift, rather than in Waianae, which lengthened his work day.

In a January 2012 encounter at the Kapolei station, Arakaki allegedly walked aggressively toward Martin, forcing him to move out of the way, and other officers glared at Martin as he left.

Soon after, Sojot began requiring strict enforcement of HPD rules, a policy that other officers began to refer to as the "George Martin Rules," the lawsuit says.

Several co-workers informed Martin that he was under greater scrutiny because of his complaints and that he needed to improve his performance statistics.

Martin complained to the chief’s office, and in May 2012, Ancheta asked him to move to the district’s burglary/theft detail, which would mean less pay. Martin said he would think about it, but the lawsuit doesn’t say if he took the position.

In July 2013, Martin found a drawing of a gun firing bullets at a man in a hooded sweatshirt with the name "Martin" written underneath and the word "thug" above, the suit says. Martin believed the drawing was meant to intimidate him.

When Martin filed the lawsuit four months later, the drawing remained posted in the squad room.

In the suit, Martin claims the defendants failed to conduct a proper investigation into his complaints and he continues to suffer serious emotional distress, humiliation and anguish, and that his supervisors singled him out to cause him distress.

He is suing for undisclosed and punitive damages. He has requested a jury trial, but a trial date has not been set.

An HPD spokeswoman said the department cannot comment on pending litigation, but said slide time is not an authorized activity within the department.

Don Huynh of Remillard & Huynh, a law firm specializing in personal injury, unlawful discrimination and unlawful retaliation cases, is representing Martin. Speaking in general terms, not specific to the case, Huynh said under whistleblower laws, the identity of the whistleblower is supposed to be kept confidential.

"When an employer doesn’t protect the identity of a whistleblower, they’re undermining the willingness of other employees to come forward and report wrongdoing," he said. "It essentially creates a chilling effect so that there won’t be any future whistleblowers coming forward and that wrongdoing will just continue."