'A Miscarriage of Justice': Court of Appeal Reverses $13M Judgment Against UCLA
The Second District Court of Appeal agreed with the university's lawyers' contention that the trial court prejudiced the jury by beginning trial with a speech quoting Martin Luther King Jr. and a video featuring notable civil rights activists throughout history.
April 23, 2020 at 06:07 PM
4 minute read
The Regents of the University of California did not get a fair trial in an employment discrimination case that strapped the school with $13 million in damages, a California appeals court ruled.
California's Second District Court of Appeal on Thursday reversed a judgment in favor of Lauren Pinter-Brown, a professor of medicine who claimed the University of California, Los Angeles discriminated against her based on age and gender, over grave errors that constituted "a miscarriage of justice," according to the opinion.
The court agreed with UCLA's lawyers from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Linfield prejudiced the jury by beginning the trial with a speech quoting Martin Luther King Jr. about how the "arc of the moral universe bends toward justice," followed by a video featuring notable civil rights activists throughout history.
"The judge told the jury he was honored to sit before 'the people who are going to be bending that arc.'" When the university's legal team, lead by Orrick's Eric Shumsky, objected to Linfield's presentation, the judge said it was not improper because he had instructed the jurors that these civil rights figures were sometimes plaintiffs and sometimes defendants, the decision states.
"By telling the jurors they were Dr. King, the court told them they were also there to right a wrong," wrote Associate Justice Maria Stratton, who was joined by Acting Presiding Justice Elizabeth Grimes and Associate Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. "Each case cited by the court was another step in the right direction: toward equality and away from discrimination. The court's message was clear: the jury's job was to continue in that great, noble and moral tradition of pushing society toward equality."
The justices said that the judge's "resolute and stirring call to action" stacked the deck against UCLA and would be inappropriate in any case.
A UCLA spokesperson said in an email that the university is pleased with the ruling and reviewing the details. "Ensuring a respectful and inclusive environment is essential to the research and education carried out by the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. UCLA Health and its medical school are committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation or harassment of any kind," the spokesperson said.
The trial court also "abandoned its duty to ensure UCLA received a fair and impartial trial" when it admitted "irrelevant and highly prejudicial" reports into the record in the form of "Me too" evidence, the justices decided. Testimony from a report detailing instances of racial discrimination on campus, fell outside of the protected age and gender discrimination classes, the justices noted.
"'Me too' evidence is never admissible to prove an employer's propensity to harass," Stratton wrote. "Yet, that is exactly what the court allowed Dr. Pinter-Brown to do."
In addition, the justices called out Linfield's "inexplicable error" of allowing Dr. Pinter-Brown to resurface a previously adjudicated retaliation claim during the close of evidence.
"When the trial court adjudicated the retaliation claim, the judgment as to that issue was final and could not be revived," the court of appeal said. "We can imagine few things more prejudicial to UCLA than to have that judgment nullified at the close of evidence, forcing UCLA to argue an issue it could not have reasonably been expected to defend."
The court said putting the claim before the jury "at the 11th hour constituted an ambush," and that Pinter-Brown took advantage of the ambush by pointing out that the defense did not reference the retaliation claim "one iota."
Shegerian & Associates attorneys Carney Shegerian and Jill McDonell, who represented Pinter-Brown, did not respond to a request for comment Thursday afternoon.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Basic Arithmetic': Court Rules in Favor of LA Charter School Denied Funding by California Education Department
'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLitigators of the Week: Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman Reach a Settlement With the NCAA that Reshapes College Sports
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250