25 Cal. App. 5th 31
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff Augustine Caldera, a correctional officer who stutters, worked at a state prison and testified that coworkers (including supervisor Sgt. James Grove) mocked and mimicked his stutter repeatedly from about 2006–2008.
- Witnesses (Dr. Victor Jordan, Sgt. Jessie Lara, Officer Robert Konrad) corroborated multiple incidents, including mocking over the prison radio (audible to ~50 staff), a shift-change confrontation (~24 staff present), and repeated mimicry in front of supervisors.
- Caldera filed an EEO complaint in September 2008 after a confrontational remark by Grove; Grove was reassigned but allegedly continued the conduct.
- Caldera sued CDCR and Grove under FEHA for disability harassment, failure to prevent harassment, and related claims; a jury found harassment (both severe and pervasive), supervisor participation, causation, CDCR’s failure to take all reasonable preventative steps, and awarded $500,000 in noneconomic damages.
- Trial court granted a new trial limited to damages as excessive but failed to file the statutorily required statement of reasons within 10 days; defendants appealed and Caldera cross-appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed the liability findings (sufficiency of evidence) and instructional rulings but reversed the order granting a new trial on damages because the trial court’s statement of reasons was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Was harassment "severe or pervasive" under FEHA? | Caldera argued repeated mocking over years, public incidents (radio, shift change, training), expert testimony showing psychological harm and institutional culture, suffice under totality of circumstances. | CDCR/Grove contended incidents were minor/teasing, isolated, and not legally severe or pervasive; relied on cases requiring extreme behavior for "severe." | Substantial evidence supported jury finding harassment was severe or pervasive considering frequency, public nature, psychological harm, and cultural testimony. |
| Failure to prevent harassment: Did CDCR fail to take all reasonable steps? | Caldera argued CDCR policies/training existed but were ineffective given continued conduct after complaint. | CDCR argued it had anti-harassment policies, training, and issued a cease-and-desist after the EEO complaint. | Jury reasonably could find CDCR failed to take all reasonable steps because conduct continued (e.g., October training incident) after corrective measures. |
| Jury instructions: Was giving Caldera’s Special Instruction No. 7 (failure to follow policies may show pretext) erroneous/prejudicial? | Caldera argued instruction correctly states law and is admissible evidence of pretext. | Defendants contended the instruction was misleading, incomplete, and prejudicial. | Court held the instruction correctly stated the law and, even if error, was not prejudicial; no reversal required. |
| Trial court procedure: Was the new-trial order (limited to damages) valid without timely written reasons? | Caldera argued the order was defective because the court failed to file the required written statement of reasons within 10 days, rendering the new-trial order invalid. | Defendants conceded untimeliness but sought affirmance on alternative grounds (e.g., instructional error) to uphold the new trial. | The court reversed the new-trial order because the statement of reasons was untimely; alternative grounds failed because any alleged instructional error was non-prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (defining FEHA requirement that harassment be severe or pervasive)
- Fuentes v. AutoZone, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1221 (totality of circumstances; compressed period can still be severe/pervasive)
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (isolated verbal remarks, absent assault/threat, may be insufficient to show severe harassment)
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal.4th 264 (conduct not aimed at plaintiff may not create hostile work environment)
- Brennan v. Townsend & O'Leary Enterprises, 199 Cal.App.4th 1336 (insufficient evidence where plaintiff not specifically targeted and few incidents occurred)