 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mwaniki v. eBay9/23/2005
. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form and return it to the bailiff.
"2. Did [defendant] discharge [plaintiff]? [Answer: Yes.]
"If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form and return it to the bailiff.
"3. Were [plaintiff's] statement(s) to [defendant] supporting [the contractor's] charge of discrimination a motivating reason for [defendant's] decision to discharge [plaintiff]? [Answer: Yes.]
"If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form and return it to the bailiff.
"4. Was [defendant's] retaliatory conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to [plaintiff]? [Answer: No.]
"If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form and return it to bailiff."
Plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for a new trial on the grounds raised in this appeal.
Inconsistent Verdict
A verdict that "is against law" is a ground for a new trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. 6.) Inconsistent verdicts are against the law. (Shaw v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1344.) "The inconsistent verdict rule is based upon the fundamental proposition that a factfinder may not make inconsistent determinations of fact based on the same evidence." (Cavallaro v. Michelin Tire Corp. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 95, 101.) There can be inconsistencies between special verdicts, between general verdicts on separate causes of action, and between special findings of fact and a general verdict. (See Wegner et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials and Evidence (2004) 17:50 to 17:56, pp. 17-12 to 17-13; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 625.) The various types of inconsistencies arising in special verdicts include inconsistencies that can be identified by reviewing the special verdict itself. Such inconsistencies occur when (1) the jury fails to follow the directions on the special verdict form and answers questions in a conflicting manner, or (2) either the questions asked or the answers provided contain ambiguities that create a potential conflict. (See, e.g., Woodcock v. Fontana Scaffolding & Equip. Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 452, 456 [standing alone, the verdict was ambiguous as to whether the amount awarded was net or gross damages].)
Plaintiff contends that the verdict is fatally inconsistent because of the jury's answers to questions 3 and 4. Plaintiff theorizes that question 3 is a causation inquiry asking whether retaliation motivated defendant's adverse employment decision whereas question 4 is a damage inquiry asking whether harm resulted from defendant's adverse employment decision. She points out that undisputed harm resulted to her from the adverse employment decision given that defendant terminated her. She therefore reasons that the jury could not reach question 4 only to answer it negatively. She adds that the trial court instructed the jury that a substantial factor must be more than a remote or trivial factor. From this, she reasons that, in negatively answering question 4, the jury necessarily found that the retaliation in this case was a remote or trivial factor in causing harm. She then urges that the jury could not logically conclude that retaliation motivated her discharge but was a remote or trivial factor in causing her harm. She bolsters her arguments by p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|