191 Cal. App. 4th 53
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Turman sued Turning Point of Central California for FEHA gender discrimination (disparate treatment and hostile work environment).
- Trial court instructed on disparate impact rather than disparate treatment after evidence suggested neutral policy, and the jury found no disproportionate adverse effect on women.
- Jury also found Turman subjected to hostile environment but that Turning Point did not fail to take immediate corrective action.
- Turman alleged trial error for not instructing on disparate treatment and sought punitive damages; Turning Point argued financial difficulties justified a single overnight male staffer for urinalysis.
- This appeal led to reversal of judgment on the hostile environment claim and remand for FEHA hostile environment proceedings; punitive damages were not revived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Turning Point fail to take immediate corrective action in hostile environment? | Turman contends substantial evidence shows no corrective action. | Turning Point asserts harassment is inherent; no need for corrective action. | Reversed; no substantial evidence of corrective action. |
| Was the disparate treatment claim properly omitted in instruction in favor of disparate impact? | Turman argues for instruction on disparate treatment. | Policy appears neutral; disparate impact appropriate. | Disparate impact instruction was appropriate. |
| Should punitive damages be revived on remand? | Punitive damages pleaded should be revived if remanded. | Punitive damages were insufficiently pled. | Punitive damages not revived. |
| Was the disparate impact verdict form incomplete or misleading warranting a new trial? | Special verdict omitted key facts; could mislead. | Deficiencies not shown to cause miscarriage of justice. | No miscarriage; no new trial required on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. TJD, Inc., 12 Cal.App.4th 830 (1993) (reversal only for reversible error affecting substantial rights)
- Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006) (prison environment does not excuse failure to take corrective action)
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (2000) (disparate treatment vs. disparate impact distinction)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (1994) (test for prejudicial instructional error in civil cases)
- College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.4th 704 (1994) (elements of punitive damages under Civ. Code § 3294)
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (2006) (guidance from Title VII decisions interpreting FEHA)