Hatai v. Peo. of the State of Cal. CA2/3
154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hatai sued Caltrans and Haddadeen under FEHA for race/national origin discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination.
- Haddadeen supervised Hatai at Caltrans’ Office of Traffic Investigations; internal complaints about hostile environment and alleged favoritism circulated before trial.
- June 5, 2007 and related letters alleged anti-Arab sentiments and “We Arabs should stick together,” though later testimony varied on exact discrimination.
- Hatai sought to introduce evidence of discrimination against employees outside his protected class to prove systemic hostility, including non-Asian employees.
- The trial court restricted such evidence as collateral, and the jury returned verdicts for Caltrans and Haddadeen; on appeal, Hatai challenged evidentiary rulings, credibility determinations, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether me-too evidence of non-Arab discrimination was admissible | Hatai relied on me-too evidence to show broader discriminatory context. | Caltrans limited collateral claims; evidence was irrelevant to Hatai's FEHA claims. | No error; court properly excluded non-Arab me-too evidence. |
| Whether Hatai should have been allowed to amend to plead pro-Arab favoritism | Hatai requested leave to amend in opposition to nonsuit. | No proper motion for leave to amend was made; issue waived. | No error; amendment not properly pursued. |
| Whether the jury instructions sufficiently encompassed national origin/race and ancestry | Instructions inadequately captured ancestry/ color considerations. | Ancestry and color subsumed within race/national origin. | No instructional error; framing was proper. |
| Whether the cost awards to defendants were proper | Costs should be struck if lawsuit frivolous. | Ordinary costs recoverable to prevailing FEHA defendants. | Affirmed; costs awarded to defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation, 173 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2009) (me-too evidence admissible to prove motive/reason in FEHA cases)
- Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011) (me-too evidence relevant to gender bias and harassment)
- Perez v. County of Santa Clara, 111 Cal.App.4th 671 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2003) (ordinary costs recoverable by prevailing FEHA defendants)
- Barrese v. Murray, 198 Cal.App.4th 494 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (thirteenth juror credibility standard)