McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Asso.
216 Cal. App. 4th 283
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- PMA is a California nonprofit bargaining agent; Yusen is a PMA member and terminal operator, employer of McCoy.
- McCoy trained as a vessel planner starting December 2003; she faced isolation, substandard instruction, and denial of materials.
- McCoy alleged harassment by Spanjol, including racially derogatory remarks and sexually offensive conduct, and retaliation after her federal suit.
- Arbitration regarding her grievance found no harassment or discrimination and imposed conditions on McCoy’s return; McCoy later sued for FEHA claims, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Trial court granted summary adjudication of sexual harassment and IIED; PMA’s JNOV on retaliation; excluded in limine certain evidence; and granted a new trial on several grounds.
- Appellate court affirmed some rulings, reversed JNOV on retaliation, remanded for retrial with guidance on admissibility of similar-acts evidence, and affirmed PMA’s JNOV while upholding new-trial grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary adjudication of sexual harassment was proper | McCoy argues harassment was pervasive enough to alter conditions of employment. | Spansjol’s conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile environment. | Summary adjudication affirmed; no hostile environment found. |
| Whether IIED claim was properly dismissed | McCoy asserts outrageous conduct and intent to cause distress. | Conduct did not meet extreme and outrageous standard. | IIED dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether evidence of retaliation and other-employee discrimination was properly excluded | Evidence shows hostility and possible retaliatory intent; similar-acts evidence is relevant. | Evidence was irrelevant or prejudicial under 350/352 and nonparty conduct. | Exclusion affirmed; remand on similar-retaliation evidence guided. |
| Whether PMA can be held as employer under FEHA | PMA exercised sufficient control to be considered employer. | Yusen controlled employment; PMA had minimal control; not the employer. | Partial JNOV in favor of PMA affirmed; PMA not an FEHA employer. |
| Whether new-trial order was appropriate | New trial warranted due to irregularities, surprise, and excessive damages. | No abuse of discretion; damages and conduct do not warrant a new trial. | New trial affirmed on irregularity, surprise, and excessive damages grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (de novo review of summary adjudication; standard of proof)
- Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2005) (totality of circumstances in hostile environment harassment)
- Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) (hostile environment factors; conduct not directed at plaintiff)
- Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, 214 Cal.App.3d 590 (Cal. App. Dist. 1989) (permeation of harassment in workplace context)
- Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2009) (employer knowledge and failure to act; supervisory liability)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (retaliation requires material alteration of employment terms via totality of circumstances)
- Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (evidence of other employees' retaliation; relevance under FEHA-like claims)
- Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. App. 2011) (similarity for admissibility of 'me-too' retaliation evidence)
- Anderson v. Pacific Maritime Association, 336 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2003) (PMA as employer for port workers; control considerations)
- Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.3d 211 (Cal. 1982) (remedies in FEHA; breadth of relief)