Hughes v. Home Savings of America2/13/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
I. Introduction
Home Savings of America, FSB, defendant, appeals from an order denying its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The jury found for plaintiff, Angela Hughes, on her racial harassment and discrimination claims (Gov. Code, ยง 12900 et seq.) by a nine-to-three vote. In addition to $449,640 in compensatory damages, the jury awarded plaintiff $1.5 million in punitive damages, also by a nine-to-three vote. Defendant moved for a JNOV or, in the alternative, a new trial. The trial court: denied defendant's JNOV motion in its entirety; granted a new trial as to plaintiff's harassment and punitive damage claims; and denied a new trial as to the discrimination finding. We find no substantial evidence in support of the jury's findings. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying defendant's JNOV motion as to plaintiff's racial harassment and discrimination claims. Upon issuance of the remittitur, the trial court is to vacate its new trial order and to enter a JNOV in defendant's favor.
II. The Evidence
Based on the evidence set forth below, the jury was asked to decide two issues. First, the jurors were directed to find whether, at any time after April 1993, plaintiff had been harassed because of her race. Second, the jurors were asked to determine whether, in January 1994, she was denied a promotion to loan workout specialist in defendant's loss mitigation department because she is an African-American. The jury found in plaintiff's favor on both causes of action.
There is some potential confusion in the record concerning the evidence the jury could properly consider in relation to plaintiff's causes of action, particularly her harassment claim. Because plaintiff's administrative charge was filed on April 1, 1994, defendant successfully moved pretrial to exclude evidence of injury or damage before April 1, 1993. In other words, any liability for events prior to April 1, 1993, would be barred because of plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. Evidence of events dating from 1990 was nevertheless introduced at trial. In addition, the jury instruction on harassment did not direct that events prior to April 1, 1993, could not be considered. The special verdict form did, however, limit the jury's consideration; it asked whether plaintiff had been harassed "at any time after April 1993." The discrimination claim was expressly limited, by instruction and the special verdict form, to the promotional decision in January 1994. In addition, the special verdict form directed the jury, "You may not award damages [caused by racial discrimination] for any event occurring before April 1, 1993." On appeal, defendant notes, "Although the only acts relevant to this lawsuit are those occurring in or after April 1993, [plaintiff] was allowed to testify, over objection, about a number of run-ins she had with [a superior, Priscilla] Limjoco between 1991 and 1993." In a footnote, defendant further states: "[Plaintiff] filed her charge with the EEOC in April 1994. Therefore, as the trial court ruled in limine, only events during that preceding year could be considered in connection with [plaintiff's] claims." Because this is the full extent of defendant's discussion of this point, and both parties continue to refer to evidence of events between 1990 and 1993, we include those facts in the evide
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|