Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd.
151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 41
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Julie Gilman Veronese sues Lucasfilm for FEHA pregnancy discrimination and related claims; she never worked a day for Lucasfilm.
- Relationship between parties was brief, primarily email communications, with few in-person meetings over about four months.
- Veronese’s job offer was a short-term, project-based position starting June 30, 2008, with a planned evaluation period.
- Patel, Lucasfilm’s estate manager, played a central role in the hiring and decision process, including health/pregnancy considerations.
- Veronese became pregnant around June 27, 2008, prompting delays, reassessment, and tensions about suitability and start dates.
- Jury returned verdict for Veronese on three FEHA claims (pregnancy discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, public policy wrongful termination) and for Lucasfilm on two others (retaliation, disability accommodation); verdict damages: $113,830; attorney fees awarded to Veronese later.
- Court reversed the judgment and the attorney fee award due to multiple instructional errors and prejudicial impact, and remanded for retrial on three Veronese claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation standard for pregnancy discrimination | Veronese argues mixed-motive allowed; causation not required to be but-for. | Lucasfilm advocates but-for standard; FEHA requires a but-for or determining factor test depending on rule. | Instruction error; prejudicial; misapplied causation standard. |
| Business judgment instruction | No need for business-judgment defense instruction. | Employer should get instruction that business judgment is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. | Refusal to give a business-judgment instruction was error and prejudicial. |
| Potential fetal hazard instruction | Instruction that fetal hazard is not a defense to discrimination should apply. | No policy or defense about fetal safety; instruction improper. | Instruction was error; could mislead jury; prejudicial. |
| Failure to instruct on elements of failure-to-prevent discrimination | Court should instruct all elements; jury could find liability. | No explicit instruction on elements. | Failure to instruct was reversible error. |
| Damages instructions and separation of claims | Damages should reflect each specific claim (discharge vs fail-to-hire). | Single damages framework suffices. | Conflating damages for two claims was error; prejudicial; required separate consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. AT&T Technologies, 995 F.2d 846 (8th Cir. 1993) (business-judgment instruction crucial in discrimination cases)
- Guz v. Bechtel National Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons must be credible; discriminatory motive governs liability)
- Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Comm., 499 U.S. 187 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (fetal-protection policies invalid when targeting women; context for health considerations)
- Lankershim; DeGeorge v. Crimmins, 254 Cal.App.2d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) (instruction must be related to evidence and not misleading)
- Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659 (Cal. 2005) (instructional error prejudicial if likely misleads jury; ‘reasonable probability’ standard)