48 Cal.App.5th 55
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Dr. Lauren Pinter‑Brown sued The Regents of the University of California (UCLA) for gender discrimination based on treatment by a colleague and supervisors and adverse actions tied to audits of her clinical trials; the jury awarded her about $13 million.
- Before trial the court denied UCLA’s motion in limine to exclude “me‑too” evidence (evidence of other employees’ discrimination complaints).
- At voir dire the trial judge delivered a lengthy civics/civil‑rights presentation (invoking Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and telling jurors their job was to “bend the arc toward justice”), and refused UCLA’s request for a mistrial or new panel.
- The court allowed testimony and questioning that conveyed the contents and conclusions of the Moreno Report (an independent 2013 investigation into racial/ethnic bias at UCLA) even though the report itself was excluded as hearsay.
- The court admitted into evidence a list of DFEH complaints across the entire UC system and permitted broad “me‑too” argument; and, after close of evidence, allowed Pinter‑Brown to amend to add a retaliation claim that had been previously summarily adjudicated against her.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding these rulings (taken together) created cumulative, highly prejudicial error and denied UCLA a fair trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge's voir‑dire remarks invoking civil‑rights leaders and telling jurors to “bend the arc toward justice” | Remarks were a routine call to civic duty and impartial service, not prejudicial. | Remarks impermissibly signaled judicial partiality and urged a verdictal mission favoring discrimination plaintiffs. | Reversed: remarks created appearance of bias and were prejudicial in context. |
| Admission of Moreno Report content (racial‑bias report excluded as hearsay) | Moreno Report showed institutional pattern of labeling discrimination as interpersonal conflict; admissible to show defendant’s state of mind and systemic practices. | Report was hearsay and concerned racial/ethnic bias (not gender); content was irrelevant propensity evidence. | Reversed: court improperly permitted jury exposure to report’s conclusions through witnesses; hearsay/propensity concerns prejudicial. |
| Admission of DFEH complaints (“me‑too” evidence across UC system) | The list demonstrates pervasive gender discrimination at UCLA and is admissible to show motive/intent and pretext. | The complaints were anonymous, not tied to Pinter‑Brown’s unit or supervisors, and amounted to inadmissible propensity evidence. | Reversed: list and argument were too remote and served only to show propensity—improper and prejudicial. |
| Allowing retaliation claim after it had been summarily adjudicated for defendant pretrial | Amendment conformed to proof; retaliation theory at trial was different in substance and harmless if duplicative. | Claim was finally adjudicated against plaintiff by summary adjudication; allowing it at close of evidence was an ambush and prejudicial. | Reversed: reviving adjudicated claim was improper and prejudicial; summary adjudication is binding. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sturm, 37 Cal.4th 1218 (judicial comments to jury must avoid appearance of bias)
- Haluck v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 994 (trial must appear and be fair; judge should be discreet)
- Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation, 173 Cal.App.4th 740 (when and how “me‑too” evidence may be admissible to show intent/pretext)
- Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal.App.4th 87 (limits on using other‑employees’ harassment evidence to prove employer propensity)
- Abadjian v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.3d 363 (summary adjudication disposes issues and is binding)
- Raghavan v. Boeing Co., 133 Cal.App.4th 1120 (parties may not relitigate issues resolved by summary adjudication)
- Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. McGrath, 128 Cal.App.4th 1093 (secondary hearsay of an excluded document is not admissible)
- Piscitelli v. Friedenberg, 87 Cal.App.4th 953 (cumulative errors can require reversal)