Mendoza v. Western Medical Center Santa Ana
222 Cal. App. 4th 1334
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mendoza, a longtime hospital nurse, was terminated after reporting sexual harassment by a per diem supervisor, Erdmann.
- The hospital conducted an investigation that Mendoza’s experts criticized as incomplete and biased.
- Mendoza and Erdmann were both terminated on December 14, 2010 for “unprofessional conduct.”
- The jury awarded Mendoza $238,328 (past economic loss $93,328; past emotional distress $145,000) to reverse, with a ninth-to-three vote.
- The trial court instructed using the 2012 version of CACI 2430 and VF-2406, later deemed incorrect post-Harris/Alamo.
- The appellate court reversed the judgment for a new trial, ruling on instructional error but not granting a judgment as a matter of law for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the causation instruction was prejudicially misstated. | Mendoza claims the instruction required a single motivating reason. | Defendants contend the instruction was proper. | Prejudicial error; reversal for new trial. |
| Whether the verdict was supported by substantial evidence despite the instructional error. | Evidence supports retaliation due to proximity and conduct. | Record lacks sufficient inferable retaliatory motive. | Substantial evidence supports the verdict on causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (Cal. 2013) (holding FEHA standard requires substantial motivating factor in causation)
- Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., 219 Cal.App.4th 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (public policy/causation standard aligned with Harris; prejudicial error from former versions of CACI 2430)
- Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, 202 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (addresses use of causation language in conjunction with prohibited vs. permitted motives)
- Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (inadequate investigation as evidence of pretext)
- Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power, 144 Cal.App.4th 1216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (proximity in time as evidence of retaliatory motive)
- Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp., 17 Cal.App.4th 1418 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (retaliation and evidence of ongoing employment performance)