Firefighter From Sacramento Files Suit For Wrongful Termination

(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.)


A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision …unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision. See, CCP §657. The California Constitution limits the power of the trial court to grant a new trial unless, after examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See Rutter Group’s Civil Trials and Evidence; 18:352 (2007); California Constitution, Article VI, Section 13; Maher v. Saad (2000) 82 Cal.4th 1317, 1324. Given the state of the evidence, the only miscarriage of justice that could possibly result would be if the jury’s verdict were thrown out.


A detailed timeline of the evidence at trial is attached to the Declaration of Tom Barry, and is part of the Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Opposition to the JNOV. The chronology helps illustrate the continuity of the unlawful employment acts, and clearly demonstrates that unlawful activity continued into the one-year statutory period.

The provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof. See Government Code §12993(a). In accordance with this overall objective, it is well settled that the section 12960(d) administrative statute of limitations must be liberally construed. In Romano v. Rockwell International (1996) 14 Cal.A4th 479, 494, the California Supreme Court stated the following: In order to carry out the purpose of the FEHA to safeguard the employee’s right to hold employment without experiencing discrimination, the limitations period set out in the FEHA should be interpreted so as to promote the resolution of potentially meritorious claims on their merits. Similarly, while discussing the timeliness of filing an administrative charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the California Supreme Court stated the following:

[A]s we have previously stressed, the liberal construction mandated by the FEHA extends to interpretations of the FEHA’s statute of limitations. See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1058. In Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798, the California Supreme Court expressed the concept of liberal construction this way:

In light of the legislative directive that the FEHA be liberally construed to safeguard the employee’s right to hold employment without experiencing discrimination , section 12960 should not be interpreted to impose serious practical difficulties on an employee’s ability to vindicate this right through litigation if it can reasonably be interpreted otherwise. Id., at 821. (See Part 5 of 19.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information