Photo of Jacquelyn Crawley

Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 941 (Feb. 7, 2013)

Wynona Harris, a bus driver for the City of Santa Monica (the City), alleged that she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  The City denied Harris’s allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that the City had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to fire Harris.  At trial, the City asked the court to instruct the jury that if it found a mix of discriminatory and legitimate motives, the City could escape liability by proving that a legitimate motive alone would have led to the same decision.  The trial court refused the instruction and instead told the jury that Harris had to prove that her pregnancy was a “motivating factor/reason for the discharge.”  The jury found in favor of Harris and awarded her $177,905 in damages.  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the requested instruction was legally correct and that refusal to give the instruction was prejudicial error.

Aber v. Comstock, 2012 WL 6863235 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012)

Plaintiff Lisa Aber sued her employer and two of its employees, alleging that the employees had sexually assaulted her.  Michael Comstock, one of the employee defendants, filed a cross-complaint against Aber, alleging claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Comstock alleged that Aber published false statements about him to four

Flores v. West Covina Auto Group, 2013 WL 139200 (Cal. App. Jan. 11, 2013)

Israel Flores and Andrea Naasz sued West Covina Toyota (WCT) and Toyota Motor Sales for selling them a “lemon,” alleging both individual and class action claims, including claims for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).  WCT filed a motion to compel arbitration and enforce the class action waiver contained