Reversing a jury verdict in favor of an employer, a California appellate panel found the trial court erred by allowing the introduction of complaints made by coworkers against the plaintiff.
Several employees working under Eunices Argueta at Worldwide Flight Services lodged complaints against her for bullying, harassment and other misconduct. Argueta then filed a complaint accusing a coworker of sexual harassment.
The company conducted an investigation and imposed certain conditions on the alleged harasser’s continued employment, issuing him a letter of concern.
Argueta resigned, citing a hostile work environment, and sued Worldwide for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
At trial, Argueta moved in limine to preclude admission of the substance of the complaints made about her. The trial court not only allowed their admission but ruled that the entire text of the complaints could be admitted. Counsel for the employer also referred to the complaints in his closing statement.
After a defense verdict was entered, Argueta moved for a new trial based on the admission of the complaints.
The appellate panel granted the motion, holding that it was prejudicial error to admit the complaints, because they materially affected Argueta’s substantial rights and prevented her from having a fair trial.
“We agree with Argueta that the high potential for undue prejudice from admission of the substance of the complaints far outweighed the very minimal probative value of that evidence, and a limiting instruction would not be effective under the circumstances of this case,” the court wrote.
The fact that a number of employees complained about Argueta’s behavior and that she was warned that she might be terminated if her behavior did not improve supported a reasonable inference that Argueta had a motive to fabricate her claim that she was sexually harassed in order to save her job, the court said.
But “[o]n these facts, the substance of the complaints against Argueta are irrelevant,” the court added. “Here, the employee complaints about [her] fit the quintessential definition of prejudice. The trial court failed to recognize that the evidence had a high potential for undue prejudice. It is, as Argueta contends, character evidence. The complaints show her as mean, rude, lazy and dishonest. In this context, the accusations of dishonesty are particularly prejudicial.”
A limiting instruction for the jury was of little impact, the court said, and when counsel for Worldwide used the substance of the complaints to argue that Argueta was a bad person, it undermined any marginal effectiveness of the limiting instruction.
Concluding that the admission of the substance of the complaints against her was prejudicial error, the court reversed the denial of Argueta’s motion for a new trial.
To read the opinion in Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., click here.
Why it matters
The appellate court’s opinion is a blow to the employer, who won a jury trial on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims and now faces a new trial without the admission of the substance of complaints made against the plaintiff.