 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Raghavan v. Boeing Co.10/31/2005
ials.'"'" (Id. at p. 1249, citations omitted, some italics added.)
Finally, the jury instruction in this case was prejudicial. "A judgment may not be reversed on appeal, even for error involving `misdirection of the jury,' unless `after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence,' it appears the error caused a `miscarriage of justice.' (Cal. Const., art. VI, ยง 13.) When the error is one of state law only, it generally does not warrant reversal unless there is a reasonable probability that in the absence of the error, a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached. . . . [ ] Thus, when the jury receives an improper instruction in a civil case, prejudice will generally be found only `" here it seems probable that the jury's verdict may have been based on the erroneous instruction . . . ."' (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 574, citations omitted.)
Here, before the taking of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury that Raghavan had engaged in misrepresentative behavior and provided misleading information to his superiors. Defense counsel emphasized that point in his opening statement and closing argument. In essence, the trial court told the jury at the outset that Raghavan was not a credible witness. Because his wrongful termination cause of action rested in large part on his own testimony, the damage to his credibility and his case cannot be overstated.
Equally important, the jury instruction involved the truthfulness of the accusations in the written reprimand. Defendants characterized the reprimand as "central" to the case, and Raghavan described it as the "heart" of his wrongful termination cause of action. Raghavan was prepared to testify that, in retaliation for his whistleblowing activity, which resulted in the discharge of a valued employee, BSS trumped up the accusations in the reprimand and set him up for layoff. Because the jury was instructed that the accusations were true, the jury was more likely to find that BSS issued the reprimand for legitimate disciplinary reasons. (See Gibbs v. Consolidated Services (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 794, 796-801.)
We therefore conclude that the judgment must be reversed as to the wrongful termination cause of action.
C. Procedural Errors in Hearing the Motion
Raghavan complains that the trial court improperly permitted BSS to file supplemental evidence in support of the summary adjudication motion and misapplied the burden of persuasion in granting the motion. We disagree.
1. Supplemental Evidence
After the parties had filed their papers, they appeared at the hearing before the trial court. At the trial court's request, the parties filed two sets of supplemental papers, the first set filed on August 22, 2003, and the second set on September 15, 2003. Defendants also submitted additional evidence. One of the issues briefed was whether Raghavan's employment application (containing the at-will provision) with HSCC governed his employment with BSS.
Raghavan attacks the supplemental evidence on several grounds. First, he contends the trial court could not consider any evidence not referenced in defendants' separate statement. That is incorrect. In this case, the trial court had discretion to consider such evidence. (See Fenn v. Sherriff (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1481; San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 315-316; Weiss v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1094, 1098-1099.)
Raghavan also argues that the trial court violated his right to due process by depriving him of fair notice and an opportunity to respond to defendants' supplement
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|