California Labor &
Employment Law Blog
Employers May Now Be Limited from Presenting Certain Evidence of Employee Misconduct As Character Evidence In Harassment Cases
Dec 15, 2023

Employers May Now Be Limited from Presenting Certain Evidence of Employee Misconduct As Character Evidence In Harassment Cases

Topics: Court Decisions, Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation

In 2008, Eunices Argueta (Argueta) was hired by a freight operations company in El Segundo, California, eventually acquired by Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. In late 2016 and early 2017, several (5) of her subordinates filed written complaints against her, making claims that she was threatening, harassing, bullying, discriminatory, and emotionally abusive.  

In early May 2017, Argueta’s supervisor Dzung Nguyen (Nguyen) placed her on paid leave during an investigation into a dispute between Argueta and one of her co-workers. On the last day of Argueta’s leave, she filed a complaint with Worldwide against Nguyen for sexual harassment, which included claims that he inappropriately touched her face, hair, and body multiple times; called her “my baby,” “my sweet heart,” and “my girl;” and messaged her using inappropriate emojis for the workplace.

Just over one year later, Argueta resigned, and one year after that, Worldwide fired Nguyen as a result of an investigation into additional claims filed against him by other employees alleging sexual harassment -- claims with similar allegations to those lodged by Argueta. 

Argueta sued Worldwide for sexual harassment and retaliation, and the jury returned a verdict in Worldwide’s favor. Before trial, Argueta moved in limine to preclude the substance of the various complaints (filed against her by her co-workers) from evidence, on the grounds that they were prejudicial. When the court allowed the complaints to be read into evidence at trial and the jury found for the defense, she filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied her motion.

Argueta appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ordering a new trial of Argueta’s claims. The Court found that the admission of the evidence against Argueta was a prejudicial error. Specifically, the Court held that the “jury should be given the opportunity to evaluate Argueta’s credibility, untainted by improper evidence.”  

While a trial court has the discretion to exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury" (Evidence Code Section 352), the Court of Appeals found that the trial court failed to recognize that the substance of the complaints had a high potential for undue prejudice. Specifically, the Court found that the substance of the complaints against Argueta was irrelevant to assessing whether or not (i) she was offended by Nguyen's conduct, (ii) it affected her perception of Nguyen’s conduct, and/or (iii) she had motive to fabricate any of her allegations regarding Nguyen's conduct. 

Accordingly, employers may now have more difficulty introducing relevant character evidence at trial (to support, for example, claims of motive for plaintiff making their complaint or the issue of plaintiff’s credibility), even when made by no less than five employees.

About CDF

For over 25 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor in Chief

Sacramento Office Managing Partner and Chair of CDF’s Traditional Labor Law Practice Group. Mark has been practicing labor and employment law in California for thirty years. His practice has a special emphasis on the representation of California employers in union-management relations and handling federal and state court litigation and administrative matters triggered by all types of employment-related disputes. He is also adept at providing creative and practical legal advice to help minimize the risks inherent in employing workers in California. He recently named “Sacramento Lawyer of the Year” in Employment Law-Management for 2021 by Best Lawyers®.
> Full Bio   > Email   Call 916.361.0991

CDF Labor Law LLP © 2024

Editorial Board About CDF What We Do Contact Us Attorney Advertising Disclaimer Privacy Policy Cookie Policy