(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace discrimination/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Defendant Sue Davis admitted to creating documents in the investigation file that were designed to appear to be written by Plaintiff and that, in fact, even mislead defendants’ own counsel. Defendant Andrew Price admitted to suppressing the statement of a witness who did not support the allegations of defendant Marcia Byrd and admitted that defendant XYZ enforced only part of the sexual harassment policy.
Defendant Marcia Byrd said she was not at work on September 27, 2004, until she was presented with a document that showed she was. At that point she said that something to the effect that “she didn’t remember.” There also was testimony that Byrd had said that she got Plaintiff fired before he got her, and that she had written a report about him and gotten others to write reports about him. She also testified that she had not spoken with anyone at all about Plaintiff’s alleged conduct, but some of her friends testified otherwise.
There was testimony at trial that defendants Harris and Smith knew that defendant Byrd was not credible. Defendants Smith, Davis and Price testified they did not follow company policy. Defendant Harris testified that she was told by the Vice president of Human Resources, Nancy Hall, not to follow company policy.
Although there are numerous other portions of the record that can be cited to support granting Plaintiff’s motion for new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence with respect to defamation, these portions alone justify such action. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to reexamine the record and grant his motion for new trial based on the alternative ground of insufficiency of the evidence.
It is a violation of law to terminate an employee or to treat him differently in the terms and conditions of his employment for reasons based on his race. (Govt. Code § 12940(a).)
There was significant evidence presented at trial that a supervisor of a different race than Plaintiff was treated much differently than Plaintiff for conduct that was more severe than that in which Plaintiff actually engaged. There was even evidence that management joked with this other supervisor about him engaging in sexual harassment. Throughout their testimony defendants stated that it was difficult for Byrd to come forward with allegations of sexual harassment against her supervisor, yet failed to appreciate that it might be difficult for other women as well, and therefore anonymous complaints should be investigated.
Although there are numerous other portions of the record that can be cited to support granting Plaintiff’s motion for new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence with respect to race discrimination, these portions alone justify such action. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to reexamine the record and grant his motion for new trial based on the alternative ground of insufficiency of the evidence. (See Part 9 of 12.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.