24 Cal.App.5th 855
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Meeks (employee) alleged repeated sexual harassment by co-employee/store manager Juan Fajardo (comments, sexual texts/images, three forcible kissing attempts) and claimed AutoZone failed to prevent harassment and retaliated against her. Fajardo was terminated in 2010 after sending sexual texts to another employee; Meeks sued soon after.
- Procedural posture: Meeks sued AutoZone and Fajardo under FEHA (hostile work environment, failure to prevent, retaliation, and sexual battery). Trial court granted AutoZone summary adjudication on the retaliation claim; jury returned defense verdicts on remaining claims. Meeks appealed.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed summary adjudication on retaliation but found several trial evidentiary rulings erroneous and prejudicial, requiring reversal and a new trial on the non-retaliation claims.
- Key evidentiary errors identified: (1) overly broad exclusion of Meeks’s detailed testimony about the content of sexual text messages and attachments from Fajardo; (2) improper exclusion/limitation of “me‑too” evidence (other employees’ complaints and conduct by Fajardo) as to Fajardo’s liability; and (3) erroneous admission of a revealing photograph of Meeks’s tattoo over Section 1106 limits.
- The court held some other exclusions (e.g., excluding detailed HR investigator statements/investigation documents, and limiting testimony about a prior employee Olson) were within discretion. Cumulatively, however, the evidentiary rulings skewed the credibility contest and were not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Meeks’s detailed testimony about texts/photos/videos Fajardo sent | Meeks argued she should be allowed to describe the content and attachments (not offered for truth but to show offensiveness/operative facts) and oral proof is permitted where originals are lost (§ 1523) | AutoZone/Fajardo argued spoliation/secondary evidence/hearsay concerns and unfairness; texts couldn’t be proved verbatim | Court: Exclusion of detailed content was erroneous; oral testimony about substance/attachments admissible as nonhearsay operative facts and under Evidence Code §1521–1523 principles; error prejudicial. |
| Admission of “me‑too” evidence (other employees’ claims/experiences with Fajardo) | Meeks argued me‑too evidence is relevant to show discriminatory intent, notice, and a pattern; probative value outweighed prejudice | Defendants argued such evidence was inadmissible propensity evidence and would be confusing/time-consuming | Court: Trial court misapplied law and unduly limited me‑too evidence; exclusion constituted abuse of discretion because such evidence can be relevant and admissible under Pantoja/Johnson; error prejudicial. |
| Admission of photograph of Meeks’s tattoo and testimony about her sexual conduct | Meeks argued photo was remote (posted 2006) and not conduct with Fajardo; evidence of her sexual conduct is barred by §1106(a) unless it relates to conduct with the alleged perpetrator (§1106(b)) | Defendants used tattoo photo to suggest Meeks’s sexual openness/consent; argued conversations were relevant | Court: Publishing tattoo photo was improper under §1106(a) because tattoo/photo were not sexual conduct with Fajardo; admission was abuse of discretion and prejudicial. |
| Summary adjudication on retaliation claim | Meeks contended threats and other conduct after her complaint constituted adverse employment action and causation | AutoZone argued no adverse employment action occurred (no demotion, loss of pay, termination, or materially adverse change) | Court: Affirmed summary adjudication; a mere unexecuted threat is not an adverse action under FEHA standards (Yanowitz, Jones). |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuentes v. AutoZone, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1221 (discussing elements of harassment claim and objective/subjective offensiveness)
- Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal.App.4th 87 (me‑too evidence admissible to prove intent/pattern in harassment cases)
- Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation, 173 Cal.App.4th 740 (fact‑specific inquiry for admitting evidence of others’ similar treatment)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (elements and adverse action standard for FEHA retaliation)
- Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 28 Cal.4th 1059 (secondary evidence does not require verbatim proof of lost documents)
- Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (me‑too evidence requires context‑specific, fact‑intensive inquiry)