Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

In Rieger, the court found that testimony about a sexual harassment plaintiff's racy banter, sexual horseplay, and statements concerning prior proposed or planned sexual exploits were subject to exclusion under California Evidence Code section 1106 unless such conduct involved the alleged perpetrator. See id. at 460-467. The Rieger court also noted:

The legislature declared its intent in enacting section 1106 as follows: [I]t is the existing policy of the State of California to ensure that causes of action for...sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery are given proper meaning. The discovery of sexual aspects of complainant's [sic] lives, as well as those of their past and current friends and acquaintances, has the clear potential to discourage complaints and to annoy and harass litigants [which] is unnecessary and deplorable. Without protection ..., individuals whose intimate lives are unjustifiably and offensively intruded upon might face the ... risk of enduring further intrusions into details of their personal lives in discovery, and in open quasi-judicial or judicial proceedings. [ ] ... [A] similar state of affairs once confronted victims in criminal prosecutions for rape ....

The Legislature has taken measures to curb those abuses in rape proceedings. It is the intent of the Legislature to take similar measures in sexual harassment ... cases. [ ] The Legislature concludes that the use of such evidence of a complainant's sexual behavior is more often harassing and intimidating than genuinely probative.... (citation omitted). Id. at 460.

Continue reading " Hostile Work Environment Results In Wrongful Termination Of Sacramento Man, Part 3 of 5 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in a personal injury case present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT

A. Legal Standards Governing Motions In Limine.
A party may bring a motion in limine to exclude evidence on the same grounds as any evidentiary objection that may be made at trial. A court may make an in limine order that counsel and witnesses may not mention objectionable matters before the jury, to avoid creating an improper inference in the jurors' minds that a subsequent instruction to disregard those matters may not cure. A trial court has inherent power to entertain and grant a motion in limine. 3 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed.), § 368.369.

B. Inquiry Into And Admission Of Evidence Of Ms. Black's Prior Sexual Conduct With Individuals Other Than The Harasser Is Irrelevant and Inadmissible.

Under California Evidence Code section 350, no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. Cal. Evid. Code § 350. Relevant evidence is defined as any evidence having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Cal. Evid. Code § 210. Defendants anticipate that Plaintiff will attempt to elicit testimony and submit evidence regarding Ms. Black's prior sexual history and/or conduct with others, including prior complaints by Ms. Black of sexual harassment against individuals other than Plaintiff, in an attempt to show that the conduct complained of by Ms. Black was not unwelcome or offensive and to improperly impugn Ms. Black's character. Such evidence is not relevant to establishing whether Defendant XYZ discriminated against Plaintiff.

Continue reading " False Sexual Harassment Charges Lead To Termination Of Sacramento Man, Part 2 of 5 " »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Defendants' Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendant Tamara Black's Prior Sexual History

INTRODUCTION

Defendants XYZ Security, Ken Brown, Tim Lee, Sondra Green, and Tamara Black (collectively "Defendants") respectfully move this Court, in limine, to preclude Plaintiff, Bobby White ("Plaintiff"), his counsel, and witnesses from commenting upon, inquiring into, and introducing evidence at trial relating to Ms. Black's alleged past sexual conduct with anyone other than Plaintiff, and prior complaints of sexual harassment Ms. Black made unrelated to Plaintiff. This motion is made on the grounds that evidence of past sexual conduct with individuals other than Plaintiff is not relevant to the issues in this case. Whether Plaintiff was terminated because of his race and gender does not turn on the private sexual behavior of Ms. Black. The admission of such evidence, introduced by Plaintiff in an effort to bolster his claims, also is prohibited as a matter of law.

This motion is based on the California Evidence Code sections 350, 1106, and 352 the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.220, the memorandum of points and authorities set forth below, the papers and records filed herein, and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff has sued his former employer, XYZ Security and various of his co-workers, following his termination in October 2005 for violation of XYZ's harassment and discrimination policy.

Continue reading " Sacramento Man Fights Wrongful Termination, Part 1 of 5 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Plaintiff was falsely accused of sexually harassing defendant Tamara Black. Defendants' investigations into these allegations were incredibly sloppy and shoddy, and not in compliance with their own policies. Defendants, through their expert witness disclosure, have declared that Hall would offer testimony on the following subjects:

It is anticipated that Ms. Hall will offer testimony relating to human resource matters, including but not limited to, the prevention of discrimination and harassment, and responding to complaints of discrimination and harassment, effective investigation procedures generally and particularly as the apply to the investigations done in this case. Ms. Hall will be asked to review any opinions offered by Plaintiff's expert and offer her own opinions in rebuttal.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Ms. Hall's Testimony Should Be Excluded To The Extent It Consists of Improper Legal Conclusions, Usurping The Function of The Trier of Fact To Determine The Reasonableness of Defendants' Conduct

Expert opinion testimony is inadmissible when it involves the manner in which the law should apply to a particular set of facts and includes a legal conclusion based upon the analysis. (See Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1179.) Even if the expert's opinion does not address a question of law, it is not appropriate if it invades the province of the jury to decide a case. An expert opinion is supposed to help the jury in doing its work, not usurp the function of the jury. (Id. at 1183.) Expert opinion about the significance of evidence does not assist the jury but instead creates an unacceptable risk that a jury would pay unwarranted deference to the expert's expertise who, in reality, may be in no better position than the jury to evaluate the evidence. (Kotla v. Regents of the Univ. Of California (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 283, 293.) When opinions are nothing more than an attempt to direct the jury to the ultimate conclusion that the expert wants them to reach, such opinions are inadmissible, as the opinion amount to advocacy not testimony. (Summers, 69 Cal.App.4th at 1185.)

Continue reading " Sacramento Sexual Harassment Plaintiff Challenges Use Of Expert At Trial, Part 2 of 2 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff's Motion In Limine Exclude Testimony of Defendants' Human Resources Expert Tina Hall

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Bobby White (hereinafter "Plaintiff" ) respectfully moves the Court for an order in limine to exclude any testimony from Defendants' proposed human resources expert Tina Hall (hereinafter "Hall"). Plaintiff brings this motion on the grounds that Hall's proposed testimony would improperly usurp the role of the jury by offering her own unnecessary and improper legal conclusions as to how this case should be decided. Hall will offer opinions, under the mantle of expert, that XYZ Security applied effective investigation procedures to the investigations done in this case. Hall's proposed testimony should be excluded under Evidence Code section 801 because it is not related to a subject sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact. Further, allowing Hall to offer her improper legal conclusions would unduly prejudice Plaintiff, while wasting the time and resources of the Court, the parties and the jury. Hall's testimony regarding plaintiff's alleged sexual harassment, therefore, also should be excluded under Evidence Code section 352.

This motion is based on the supporting memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings, records and papers on file in this action, herein, and upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing. (See Part 2 of 2.)

Continue reading " Sacramento Security Agency Sued For Improper Sexual Harassment Allegations, Part 1 of 2 " »