California Appeals Court Orders New Trial After Mishandled Workplace Harassment Case

If you bring a workplace harassment or retaliation claim to trial, you expect the judge and jury to weigh the facts fairly. Unfortunately, not every trial proceeds without serious mistakes. In a recent case out of Los Angeles, a tenured professor sued a public college district for sexual harassment and retaliation, ultimately winning a $10 million jury verdict. That outcome, however, did not stand. A California appellate court overturned the decision, citing errors in how the trial court handled evidence and damages. This ruling offers important lessons for employees seeking justice under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The employee in this case alleged that a high-ranking administrator made repeated unwanted advances and retaliated when those advances were rejected. She claimed the retaliation affected her ability to run her program and harmed her career. The jury agreed, awarding a large sum in noneconomic damages. After the trial, the employer asked the court to reduce the award or order a new trial. Those requests were denied, but the appellate court reversed that outcome due to prejudicial evidence and improperly admitted testimony that influenced the jury.

California Courts Require Relevant and Fairly Presented Evidence

Evidence must directly support the claims at issue and be admitted in a way that does not unfairly sway the jury. In this case, the appellate court found that the trial judge allowed multiple pieces of evidence that lacked a clear connection to the employee’s specific experiences. These included newspaper articles from decades ago and unrelated misdemeanor convictions belonging to the administrator. The judge also admitted testimony from a student who had filed a harassment complaint against a different administrator altogether.

These materials, according to the appellate court, introduced bias into the trial without shedding light on the facts relevant to the employee’s claims. California courts follow the Evidence Code closely, including Section 352, which allows judges to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. In employment cases, this standard protects both sides from assumptions and distractions that do not belong in a fair trial. Employees pursuing claims should understand that success on appeal may depend on how cleanly the trial was conducted.

Emotional Harm Damages Must Reflect the Record, Not Emotion Alone

In harassment and retaliation cases, juries may award noneconomic damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. There is no fixed formula for these damages, but the award must be supported by testimony and proportional to the experiences described. In this matter, the $10 million award was questioned due to both its size and the trial court’s conduct during post-trial proceedings.

Appellate judges emphasized that a fair damages award must rest on a clear connection between the harm described and the sum awarded. Although emotional harm is profoundly personal and challenging to measure, juries are not permitted to base significant awards solely on their reaction to unrelated allegations or misconduct not directly proven. Employees can still recover substantial damages for workplace abuse, but these awards must withstand careful review if they are challenged on appeal.

Trial Judge’s Conduct Led to Further Legal Complications

Even after the jury issued its verdict, problems continued. During post-trial motions, the trial judge made inappropriate and irrelevant remarks, leading to formal disqualification for cause. This development added weight to the employer’s appeal and further undermined the trial’s outcome. California law requires judges to remain neutral and focus solely on the legal and factual issues in the case. Any conduct suggesting bias can threaten the integrity of the process and lead to a reversal.

Employees deserve a fair trial where the focus stays on the facts and the law. While misconduct by a supervisor or manager may violate FEHA, the truth must be presented through proper channels and in accordance with the rules of evidence. Anything less puts even a strong case at risk of being overturned, especially when extensive damages are awarded.

Talk to a California Employment Attorney Who Knows How to Protect Your Case

If you have faced harassment, retaliation, or any other workplace misconduct, you need legal guidance that prepares your case for every stage, including trial and possible appeal. At The Nourmand Law Firm, we represent employees across California in holding employers accountable for unlawful conduct. We work to build a case grounded in clear, admissible evidence and make sure your voice is heard without giving your employer an opening to challenge your claim on technical grounds.

Call The Nourmand Law Firm today at (310) 553-3600 to speak with an experienced California employment attorney. We are here to protect your rights and help you move forward.