Evans v. CA Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training, 2:15-cv-01951

Background

Plaintiff Tamara Evans sued the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), alleging whistleblower retaliation under California Government Code section 8547.8.
The underlying facts centered on Evans' reports concerning POST's approval and payment of insufficiently documented invoices from the San Diego Regional Training Center (SDRTC) using federal grant money.
After trial, a jury found for Evans, awarding damages, concluding POST retaliated against her for protected disclosures about suspected improper governmental activity.
POST filed post-trial motions: for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b)), a new trial (Rule 59/60), and to reduce/clarify damages, also objecting to Evans' costs.
The court denied POST's request for judgment as a matter of law, sustained only part of its cost objections, and conditionally granted a remittitur on excessive future economic damages, pending Plaintiff's acceptance.
The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict as to protected disclosure, causation, damages, and POST's lack of clear and convincing evidence of legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for adverse actions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for protected disclosure	Evans reported belief that POST's actions may be improper governmental activity	POST's payments to SDRTC didn't constitute improper activity; Evans only reported on SDRTC	Evidence was sufficient; jury could find protected disclosure
Causation/Contributing factor	Retaliatory adverse actions followed protected disclosures; sequence showed causal link	Long gap between disclosure and termination defeats causation	Jury could reasonably infer causal connection
Legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (affirmative)	Adverse action pretextual; POST failed to prove reasons independent of protected acts	POST would have taken same adverse actions for legitimate, unrelated reasons	Jury could find POST did not meet clear and convincing burden
Evidentiary rulings (character, opinion evidence)	Evidence of good job performance and lay observations on harm were relevant and proper	Testimony exceeded permissible limits and some evidence contradicted prior qui tam findings	Testimony and character evidence were properly admitted
Damages (reduction/remittitur, form)	Jury award supported by evidence; economic damages calculated per admissible methodology	Future economic damages weren't discounted; unclear damages form; award excessive	Damages to be remitted to present value; jury followed instructions
Recovery of costs	Sought recovery for copying, video editing, transcripts, etc.	Many costs not taxable; copying, video editing, expedited/daily transcripts are not allowed	Some costs disallowed (especially video editing, daily transcripts)

Key Cases Cited

Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2002) (sets high standard for overturning jury verdict on Rule 50 motions)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (requires deference to jury's factual findings in Rule 50 context)
Flores v. City of Westminster, 873 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2017) (broadly interprets adverse employment actions for retaliation claims)
L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat’l Football League, 791 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1986) (standards for reviewing jury's damage awards)
McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (deference to jury’s non-economic damages)
Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards governing new trial motions)
EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2009) (scope and limits of Rule 50 motions)