California Court of Appeal

Judgment for defendant on plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded, where: 1) the trial court did not err in summarily adjudicating the sexual harassment and emotional distress claims, because the harassment was not so severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of plaintiff's employment, and defendants' conduct failed to meet the extreme and outrageous standard necessary for the emotional distress claim; 2) the trial court properly found defendant PMA was not plaintiff's employer as that term is used in FEHA; 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial; 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence, except as to evidence of sufficiently similar retaliation by defendants against other employees; 5) there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict in plaintiff's favor on the retaliation claim and thus the court erred in setting aside that verdict; and 6) a constructive discharge is not a prerequisite to an award of economic damages for discrimination under FEHA.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/14/2013
• Published 05/14/2013

Judges

• EPSTEIN

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel