California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

CHAPMAN v. ENOS, A097943

The trial court erroneously modified the standard jury instruction on the definition of "supervisor" for purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Because there is little doubt that this error led the jury to find that plaintiff's alleged harasser was not a supervisor, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 03/10/2004
  • Published 03/10/2004


  • RIVERA, J.


  • California Court of Appeal


  • For Appellant:
  •  James M. Wagstaffe, San Francisco, Pamela Urueta, Timothy J. Fox, San Francisco, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Gary Moss and Mary Patricia Hough, Moss & Hough, San Francisco, for Appellant., Gail F. Flatt, Janis H. Grattan, Santa Rosa, Provencher & Flatt LLP, for Bruce Enos., Michael D. Senneff, Bonnie A. Freeman, Santa Rosa, Senneff Freeman & Bluestone, LLP, for County of Sonoma.

Copied to clipboard