Grobeson v. City of Los Angeles
190 Cal. App. 4th 778
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Grobeson joined the LAPD and later alleged FEHA and Labor Code violations by City and Watson, including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and constructive discharge.
- A five-week trial ended with a verdict against Grobeson on all claims, which the trial court subsequently set aside in part and granted a new trial based on juror misconduct.
- The trial court found Juror Kishiyama had prejudged the case and discussed case merits before deliberations, adopting reliance on Andrews v. County of Orange and Deward v. Clough.
- The court granted a new trial for discrimination, retaliation against City, and retaliation against Watson, but did not extend the new-trial relief to harassment claims with 11-1 or 12-0 verdicts.
- Grobeson cross-appealed claiming entitlement to equitable reinstatement and challenged denial of summary judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a directed verdict; the trial court’s cross-appeal handling and equitable relief denial were at issue.
- This appeal primarily concerns whether the new-trial order should be affirmed and whether the retaliation claim against Watson should be dismissed under Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct and new trial | Kishiyama prejudged the case before deliberations. | Hutchinson standards limit juror mental-state testimony; declarations of mental state are inadmissible. | New trial affirmed for discrimination and retaliation claims due to prejudgment bias. |
| Kishiyama’s statements as bias evidence | Statements to Wu and Faer showed bias and prejudgment. | Statements involved mental processes and should be excluded under 1150. | Statements were statements of bias and admissible as circumstantial evidence of bias; error in excluding is reversible. |
| Retaliation claim against Watson under Jones | Labor Code § 1101-based retaliation claim could lie against an individual supervisor. | Jones bars individual supervisor liability for retaliation; only employers liable. | Jones applied retroactively and requires dismissal of Grobeson’s retaliation claim against Watson. |
| Cross-appeal and equitable relief | Equitable reinstatement and other relief should be affirmed. | Cross-appeal procedural and remedy issues improperly handled; equitable relief denied should be vacated. | Cross-appeal dismissed; equitable relief order vacated and set aside; final remand directions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrews v. County of Orange, 130 Cal.App.3d 944 (Cal.App.3d 944 (1982)) (juror bias and prejudgment; open-court visitation misconduct)
- Deward v. Clough, 245 Cal.App.2d 439 (Cal.App.2d 439 (1966)) (prejudgment evidence; open-court misconduct)
- In re Stankewitz, 40 Cal.3d 391 (Cal.3d 391 (1985)) (statements of bias; admissibility of juror statements)
- People v. Hutchinson, 71 Cal.2d 342 (Cal.2d 342 (1969)) (impeachment limits; mental-state testimony)
- Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 5 Cal.3d 98 (Cal.3d 98 (1971)) (standard of review; intent to deprive impartial jury)
- Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, 42 Cal.4th 1158 (Cal.4th 1158 (2008)) (retaliation claims; supervisor liability under FEHA)
- Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640 (Cal.4th 640 (1998)) (individual liability under FEHA; limits prior to Jones)
- Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics, 46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal.App.4th 55 (1996)) (FEHA individual liability analysis; pre-Jones context)
- People v. Hedgecock, 51 Cal.3d 395 (Cal.3d 395 (1990)) (juror statements during deliberations; rare admissibility)