Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV02032, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV02032 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 47
Hoda Hassan v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. 20STCV02032
TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Final Status Conference: 5/4/23
Defendant’s MIL #1:
seeking exclusion of evidence and argument regarding purported “me too”
evidence, including complaints and/or allegations of discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation from witnesses who do not share Plaintiff’s
protected characteristics on which her claims are grounded
TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED IN PART with respect to the request
for a broad exclusion order but GRANTED IN PART, in that the Court orders
Plaintiff to identify in writing the witnesses and exhibits she will be
offering to demonstrate discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation allegedly
suffered by Plaintiff’s coworkers.
Defendant’s
motion fails to identify the specific evidence it seeks to exclude so the Court
cannot determine whether any evidence should be barred as irrelevant or unduly
prejudicial under Evidence Cod §§ 350 and 352.
A showing that other allegedly aggrieved employees are not Middle
Eastern is not sufficient to demonstrate that any evidence about their
circumstances must be excluded at trial.
Even putting aside the protected characteristics of Plaintiff and these
employees, evidence about other employees’ mistreatment may
be relevant to show that the alleged harassment of Plaintiff by
Defendants’ supervisors and employees reflected a design, plan or pattern of
misconduct because of the similarities between the misconduct directed at
others and the harassment suffered by Plaintiff. (Evidence Code § 1101(b); People v. Ewoldt
(1994) 7 Cal. 4th 380, 393–94.) Such
evidence may also be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant had a
practice of failing to take adequate steps to prevent harassment,
discrimination or retaliation from occurring or corroborative of Plaintiff’s
contention that she had a good faith belief that she suffered discrimination or
harassment in the workplace. Without
knowing the specifics of the facts that may be offered by Plaintiff, the Court
cannot make a ruling to exclude evidence from Plaintiff’s co-workers.
To allow for a proper assessment of the admissibility of the
targeted evidence, the Court orders Plaintiff to submit a brief that makes an
offer of proof regarding the evidence she will offer at trial about the work
experiences of her co-workers and advances her arguments about why the evidence
should be admitted at trial. Plaintiff
shall file and serve this brief by May 8, 2023.
Defendant may file a reply by May 10, 2023. Both submissions shall be served by email
with courtesy copies emailed to the Court, who will hear argument and rule at
the further pre-trial conference set for May 11, 2023.
Defendant’s MIL #2:
seeking exclusion of “sensationalized and unsubstantiated rumors”
TENTATIVE RULING:
GRANTED, as phrased by the motion.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated a basis for admissibility as to what she
heard about Soliman’s “penchant for engaging in sexual harassment.” There is no evidence offered about the Dodger
game incident; a mere rumor about such an incident would likely be excluded as
lacking in personal knowledge or hearsay, without some showing of a non-hearsay
purpose.
Defendant’s MIL #3:
seeking exclusion of prior settlements, verdicts or claims against the
County
TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED IN PART with respect to the request
for a broad exclusion order as to all “claims,” but GRANTED IN PART, in that
Plaintiff indicates she will not be offering “settlements or verdicts” as
evidence at trial. Further, with MIL #
1, the Court orders Plaintiff to identify in writing the witnesses and exhibits
she will be offering to demonstrate discrimination, harassment and/or
retaliation allegedly suffered by Plaintiff’s coworkers.
To allow for a proper assessment of the admissibility of the
targeted evidence, the Court orders Plaintiff to submit a brief that makes an
offer of proof regarding the evidence she will offer at trial about the claims
of her co-workers and advances her arguments about why the evidence should be
admitted at trial. Plaintiff shall file
and serve this brief by May 8, 2023. Defendant
may file a reply by May 10, 2023. Both
submissions shall be served by email with courtesy copies emailed to the Court,
who will hear argument and rule at the further pre-trial conference set for May
11, 2023.
Defendant’s MIL #4:
seeking exclusion of evidence regarding any of Plaintiff’s alleged
disabilities
TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED, except to the extent that the
evidence offered is relevant to Plaintiff’s damages
Defendant’s MIL #5:
seeking exclusion of evidence regarding allegedly wrongful conduct
occurring before January 17, 2018 or, in the alternative, a jury instruction
limiting damages form that date to the present.
TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED.
Contentions
that a claim is barred or limited by the statute of limitations or a failure to
exhaust administrative remedies are affirmative defenses as to which Defendant
has the burden of proof. Under Pollock
v. Tri-Modal Distribution Servs., Inc. (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 918, 947, “when a
defendant asserts a statute of limitations defense against a FEHA failure to
promote claim, the burden is on the defendant to prove when the plaintiff knew
or should have known of the adverse promotion decision.” Defendant’s motion in limine does not even
begin to satisfy this standard. Further,
the California Supreme Court has noted that a failure to promote claim and a
harassment cause of action may be grounded on the overlapping conduct. (Id., at p. 932 [“An employee who is
the victim of discrimination based on some official action, such as a failure
to promote, can ‘also be the victim of harassment’ based on the same or similar
underlying conduct.”) As a result, to
the extent that Plaintiff’s harassment claim is grounded on her persistent
failure to promote, the same burden must be demonstrated by Defendant to succeed
on its affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s harassment claim.