the facts asserted by plaintiff with regard to her own case go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.” (Id. at 767.) Lastly, Johnson held that the evi- dence of discrimination against other employees in other workplaces by different supervisors may be admissible, “depend[ing] on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case.” (Johnson, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th 740, 766, quoting from Mendelsohn, supra, 552 U.S. 379 at 387.) Taken together, Mendelsohn and
Johnson mandate that wide latitude be given to plaintiffs seeking discovery of dis- crimination and harassment allegedly per- petrated against other employees. Because incidents of discrimination involving other employees under the same supervisors is per se admissible, and similar discrimination perpetrated by dif- ferent supervisors at other locations may be admissible if the “factual scenarios” are deemed “sufficiently similar to the one presented by plaintiff”, trial courts must permit extensive discovery into allegations of discrimination directed at other employees working not just at plaintiff’s own location, but also at other locations supervised by other managers.
• Roby/punitive damages “Other victims” evidence can also be
used to prove the entitlement to and amount of punitive damages. This is not a new concept to federal courts, where evi- dence of other victims’ experiences has been admitted to demonstrate that the employer’s discriminatory conduct toward the plaintiff was part of a “routine” or “systematic” practice. (See, e.g., Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co. (11th Cir.2008) 513 F.3d 1261, 1285.) Evidence of such a systematic policy or practice would then be relevant to prove “malice” and “reprehensibility” in support of punitive damages. “The dominant consideration in the evaluation of a punitive damages award is the reprehensibility of the defen- dant’s conduct.” (Id. at 1283.) California courts have also recog-
nized the importance of such “other vic- tims” evidence in determining whether an employer’s conduct is sufficiently
APRIL 2011 The Advocate Magazine — 81
reprehensible to support a large punitive damages award (Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1162-63; State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408 [123 S.Ct. 1513]) and whether, “tortious conduct toward others
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112