Brown v. City of Sacramento, 37 Cal. App. 5th 587

Background

Wendell Brown, an African-American City of Sacramento solid waste supervisor and Union member, sued the City under FEHA for race discrimination and retaliation after several adverse employment actions (two suspensions, a transfer to Meadowview, a shift change, and two denied promotions). He filed a DFEH complaint and received a right-to-sue letter before filing suit.
Key contested incidents: (1) a four-day suspension (alleged alteration of a jury service form); (2) a suspension for illegal dumping (discipline finalized after internal appeals); (3) a February 2013 transfer announcement to Meadowview (effective April 2013); (4) a June 2013 shift change; and (5–6) promotion denials in 2013 and 2014.
A jury returned verdicts favoring Brown on various discrimination and retaliation claims. The City moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial, arguing some claims were time-barred or unexhausted administratively and that juror misconduct warranted a new trial.
The trial court granted JNOV in part (finding exhaustion failure as to the 2014 promotion denial and striking related lost-earnings awards), denied JNOV as to other acts, and conditionally granted a new trial only as to the 2014-promotion-based retaliation claim because one juror (Juror No. 2) failed to disclose prior litigation and appeared biased.
On appeal, the City challenged the trial court’s partial denial of JNOV (statute of limitations and exhaustion issues), the denial of a full new trial (juror misconduct and evidentiary rulings). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in all respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (City)	Held
Whether suspensions (esp. dumping suspension) were time-barred under FEHA	Suspension became final late 2012 (after appeal process), so within one-year DFEH filing window; timely	Suspensions (dated Feb 2012) occurred >1 year before DFEH filing and are barred	Court: dumping suspension became final late 2012 under City Rules; claim timely — JNOV denial as to that suspension affirmed
Whether transfer to Meadowview claims were exhausted administratively	DFEH charge alleged being "Denied or forced to transfer," so transfer claims were like/related and likely to be uncovered by DFEH investigation	Transfer occurred after DFEH filing and thus was not exhausted/related; trial court lacked jurisdiction	Court: DFEH complaint sufficiently foreshadowed transfer; exhaustion satisfied — JNOV denial as to transfer affirmed
Whether juror nondisclosure (Juror No. 2's failure to reveal prior lead-plaintiff litigation) required a new trial	Juror misconduct occurred but Brown can rebut presumption of prejudice via juror declarations and strong jury margins	Juror lied in voir dire, raising rebuttable presumption of prejudice; one biased juror can taint verdict — new trial warranted	Court: Misconduct established but presumption of prejudice was rebutted (examined juror affidavits and jury vote margins); only the 2014-promotion retaliation claim remained problematic (but JNOV already granted) — no new trial required for remaining verdicts
Whether admitting evidence of the allegedly time-barred/unexhausted acts was prejudicial error requiring new trial	Evidence was admissible because those claims were timely/exhausted as addressed above	Admission of time-barred/unexhausted evidence was prejudicial and entitled City to new trial	Court: Evidence was properly admitted given findings on timeliness/exhaustion; no prejudicial error shown

Key Cases Cited

In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273 (juror nondisclosure can raise presumption of prejudice)
Romano v. Rockwell Internat., 14 Cal.4th 479 (administrative exhaustion/DFEH prerequisite)
Richards v. CH2M Hill, 26 Cal.4th 798 (continuing violation doctrine explanation)
Okoli v. Lockheed Technical Operations Co., 36 Cal.App.4th 1607 (limits on post-charge retaliation claims not reasonably discoverable in DFEH probe)
Wills v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.4th 143 (FEHA exhaustion: "like and reasonably related to")
Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 32 Cal.3d 388 (standard for prejudice from juror misconduct)