Meeks v. AutoZone, Inc., 24 Cal. App. 5th 855

Background

Meeks (plaintiff) alleged repeated sexual harassment by co-worker/store manager Juan Fajardo (defendant) — including sexual texts, explicit images/videos, comments, and three forcible kissing attempts; she complained to district manager Susana Ledesma in Oct 2009.
AutoZone investigated in Aug–Sep 2010 and terminated Fajardo in Sept 2010 for sending sexually explicit texts to another employee; Meeks sued in Sept 2010 asserting hostile-work-environment sexual harassment, failure to prevent, retaliation (against AutoZone), and sexual battery (against Fajardo).
Trial court granted summary adjudication to AutoZone on Meeks’s retaliation claim; Meeks dismissed the sexual battery claim at trial; jury returned defense verdicts on remaining claims.
On appeal Meeks argued several trial evidentiary rulings were erroneous (limitations on her testimony about Fajardo’s texts, exclusion of most “me‑too” testimony from other employees, admission of a photo of Meeks’s tattoo, and exclusion of AutoZone investigation documents).
The Court of Appeal affirmed summary adjudication on the retaliation claim but found multiple evidentiary abuses (text-content limitations, undue exclusion of me‑too evidence, and admission of tattoo photo) were prejudicial and required reversal and a new trial as to the remaining claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Meeks’s detailed testimony about sexual texts/photos (lost originals)	Meeks: oral testimony about the content/substance of unavailable texts and attachments admissible under Evidence Code §§1521–1523 to show offensive nature and impact.	Defendants: exclusion proper due to secondary‑evidence concerns, hearsay, and inability to impeach specific content.	Court: Exclusion was erroneous; secondary‑evidence and hearsay rules did not bar Meeks’s substantive recollection and the jury should have heard details to assess objective offensiveness.
Admission of “me‑too” evidence (other employees’ harassment by Fajardo)	Meeks: evidence of Fajardo’s conduct toward other female employees relevant to intent, notice, and to rebut defense; admissible under authorities allowing me‑too evidence.	Defendants: such evidence prejudicial and improper propensity proof; trial court correctly limited it.	Court: Trial court misapplied law; me‑too evidence may be admissible and the court abused discretion by excluding much of it without proper §352 balancing.
Admission of photograph of Meeks’s lower‑abdomen tattoo and related testimony	Meeks: tattoo photo was remote and not conduct “with” Fajardo; admission invaded §1106(a) bar on plaintiff’s sexual‑conduct evidence.	Defendants: photo relevant impeachment/evidence of Meeks’s sexualized conversations and disposition.	Court: Abuse of discretion — photo inadmissible under §1106(a) (not conduct with the alleged perpetrator) and should have been excluded.
Admissibility of AutoZone internal investigation statements (Q&A)	Meeks: investigation statements relevant to notice and to impeach/rehabilitate; Silva precedent supports admissibility.	Defendants: hearsay and §352 concerns (mini‑trial, time, confusion); trial court limited them.	Court: No abuse of discretion in excluding these documents under §352 given the risk of undue time and confusion (issue treated as waived on appeal).
Summary adjudication on retaliation claim	Meeks: Denial — threats and employer conduct amounted to actionable retaliation/adverse action.	AutoZone: No adverse employment action shown; Meeks suffered no material change in terms/conditions and remained employed.	Court: Affirmed — Meeks failed to show an adverse employment action or constructive discharge; summary adjudication proper.

Key Cases Cited

Fuentes v. AutoZone, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1221 (Cal. Ct. App.) (elements of hostile‑work‑environment harassment)
Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. Ct. App.) (admissibility and probative value of me‑too evidence in harassment cases)
Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation, 173 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. Ct. App.) (fact‑intensive inquiry for me‑too evidence; balancing probative value and prejudice)
Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal.) (elements for FEHA retaliation claim; adverse employment action standard)
Rieger v. Arnold, 104 Cal.App.4th 451 (Cal. Ct. App.) (scope of “sexual conduct” for Evidence Code §1106)
Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 28 Cal.4th 1059 (Cal.) (secondary evidence not requiring verbatim proof of lost documents)
People v. Skiles, 51 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal.) (interpretation of Evidence Code §1521 secondary‑evidence exceptions)
People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (Cal.) (finder of fact resolves credibility conflicts)