Defendant Lawyer's Win in Sex-Harass Case Is Reversed; 'Me Too' Evidence Wrongly Barred
A California lawyer successfully defended a former worker’s employment discrimination suit by arguing that he used vulgar language in his office on an equal-opportunity basis, regardless of race and gender.
But a state appeals court this week reversed the trial victory for attorney Thomas J. Anton and his law firm, Thomas Anton & Associates, finding that the trial court had incorrectly excluded “me too” evidence about the way he is alleged to have treated others in his law office.
While would not be appropriate for a court to impose a civility code, at issue in this case, for example, is whether Anton treated women differently than men, the a panel of judges in the state Court of Appeal’s 5th Appellate District explained in a 54-page opinion (PDF) on Tuesday that details what Anton allegedly said.
Thus, even if comments the lawyer allegedly made to other women were outside the earshot—or employment window—of plaintiff Lorraine Pantoja, this “me too” evidence would still be relevant to attempt to show that Anton treated women differently than men, the panel ruled.
Taking issue with the trial court’s instructions to the jury, the appellate court found that they gave undue weight to the defense position that “Anton cursed indiscriminately, and at the same time invited the jury to draw the erroneous conclusion that sexual innuendo and gender-related language were the only kinds of conduct that really mattered.”
Clarifying instructions could have been given, but were not, to explain to the jury “that, although mere vulgarity by itself does not create a hostile environment, derogatory language of any type, if motivated by gender bias, can do so,” the panel explained.
Hat tip: KGET.
Additional coverage:
Metropolitan News-Enterprise: “C.A. Tosses Verdict in Favor of Attorney in Discrimination Suit”
