(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant City of Sacramento Fire Department’s Motion for a New Trial
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is based on recycled arguments that have already been rejected by both the Trial Court and the Jury. As the court will recall, the jury in this case rendered a nearly unanimous verdict in plaintiff’s favor on each of his four causes of action, resulting in a Judgment against the Defendant in excess of 1 million dollars.
The defendant’s central argument is premised on getting the Court to adopt an extremely strict approach to the statute of limitations. Any such interpretation would be directly at odds with multiple California Supreme Court decisions, which have repeatedly held that the FEHA’s statute of limitations is to be interpreted liberally to promote the resolution of potentially meritorious claims on the merits. See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028; Richards iv CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798; Romano v. Rockwell (1996) Cal.4th 479.
The defendant’s argument can be fairly summarized as follows: The FEHA provides for a one-year statute of limitations, which is set forth in Government Code §12960. Plaintiff filed his charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on June 10, 2005. Therefore, the argument goes, plaintiff is prohibited from suing on discriminatory or retaliatory acts that occurred prior to June 10, 2004. It should be noted that the defendant made precisely the same argument in its Motion in Limine #4. Plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that not only were there discriminatory and retaliatory acts that occurred within 1-year of the June 10, 2005 DFEH charge, but that acts occurring before June 10, 2004 were actionable due to the continuing violation doctrine, as described in the landmark California Supreme Court case of Yanowitz v. L’Oreal. The Court denied defendant’s Motion in Limine #4, and the case proceeded to trial.
Although plaintiff won Motion in Limine #4 and was permitted to introduce evidence of discrimination and retaliation that occurred prior to June 10, 2004, the City Attorney insisted that the jury be instructed on the statute of limitations. Plaintiff objected to any instruction on the statute of limitations, but the Court ultimately allowed the jury to consider the issue.
During the closing arguments in this case, the City Attorney argued to the jury that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The City Attorney had a large, demonstrative exhibit that purported to show that all of plaintiff’s claims were time-barred because of the 1-year statute of limitations set forth in Government Code §12960. The City Attorney, to his peril, avoided the whole issue of the continuing violation doctrine. In plaintiffs counsel’s closing argument, he noted that plaintiffs claims were timely because of two reasons: (1) some of the alleged retaliatory and discriminatory acts that were testified about at trial occurred within 1-year of plaintiff’s DFEH Filing, and (2) those that were not filed within one-year, were actionable by virtue of the continuing violation doctrine. Plaintiffs counsel specifically referred the jury to the instruction on the continuing violation doctrine. In the jury’s special verdict it made a specific finding that plaintiff filed a timely complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing with respect to each of his causes of action. (See Part 2 of 19.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.