Pantoja v. Anton
198 Cal. App. 4th 87
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Pantoja sued Anton & Associates under FEHA asserting sex discrimination and hostile environment harassment; trial focused on Anton’s conduct toward Pantoja and proffered me-too evidence from other women’s harassment.
- Defendants moved in limine to exclude racial-bias and other-me-too evidence; trial court granted, limiting me-too evidence to acts experienced by Pantoja or affecting her environment.
- During trial, numerous witnesses testified about Anton’s profanity and harassment toward employees other than Pantoja, with some evidence barred or limited by the court’s in limine rulings.
- Pantoja sought admission of me-too evidence to prove discriminatory intent and credibility, and for rebuttal after defense witnesses claimed a policy of not tolerating harassment; the court largely refused.
- Jury ultimately found no harassment based on sex and did not find gender bias as a motivating factor; the court later reversed the judgment on appeal, ordering a retrial on the me-too evidence and related issues.
- This court holds that the me-too evidence was admissible under Evidence Code sections 1101(b) and 352, and that exclusion was prejudicial; the judgment is reversed with costs to Pantoja.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Me-too evidence admissibility under 1101(b) | Me-too evidence shows discriminatory intent beyond Pantoja’s presence. | Me-too evidence is propensity evidence and should be excluded. | Abuse of discretion; me-too evidence admissible under 1101(b). |
| Impeachment and credibility using me-too testimony | Me-too evidence impeaches Anton’s credibility about policies and intent. | Me-too evidence beyond time period limits or foundation. | Admissible to impeach and to show intent under 1101(b) and 1101(c). |
| Racial discrimination evidence exclusion | Mexican-origin references and other race-related bias evidence support racial discrimination claim. | Such references are inadmissible or insufficient without more. | Exclusion improper; evidence could support racial discrimination claim and should have been admitted. |
| Lyle instruction prudence | Lyle instruction, without clarifying context, risked misdirecting jury on scope of harassment. | Lyle instruction correctly states law. | Lyle instruction was correct but insufficiently clarifying; need additional instructions to prevent misapplication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) (hostile environment language must be properly linked to gender bias; civility not required)
- Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation, 173 Cal.App.4th 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (me-too evidence admissible under 1101(b) to show discriminatory intent; pretext analysis; breadth of admissibility under FEHA)
- Beyda v. City of Los Angeles, 65 Cal.App.4th 511 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (me-too evidence in sexual harassment cases; limits under 1101(a) for unknown victims)
- Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475 (9th Cir. 1995) (evidence of harassment toward others can show discriminatory intent; admissibility under federal rules)
- Estes v. Dick Smith Ford, Inc., 856 F.2d 1097 (8th Cir. 1988) (climate of bias as relevant to employment discrimination; admissibility of prior acts)
- Zemavasky v. State, 20 Cal.2d 56 (Cal. 1942) (rehabilitation of witness with hostility; limits on using hostile witness admissions)