Caldera v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.
25 Cal. App. 5th 31, 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262 (2018)
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), disability harassment is actionable if the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment, determined by the totality of the circumstances including frequency, severity, and context.
Facts:
- Augustine Caldera worked as a correctional officer at a state prison and has a speech impediment that causes him to stutter.
- Over a period of approximately two years, Caldera's supervisor, Sergeant Grove, mocked or mimicked Caldera's stutter between 5 and 15 times.
- Grove mimicked Caldera's stutter over the prison radio system, which was heard by approximately 50 employees.
- On another occasion, Grove mocked Caldera's stutter during a busy shift change in front of about 24 other correctional officers.
- Grove continued to mock Caldera's speech during a training class for supervisors even after Caldera had filed a complaint.
- A chief psychologist at the prison testified that he heard employees mock Caldera at least a dozen times and that such conduct reflected the prison's culture.
- Caldera testified that the conduct was demeaning and hurtful, and a psychologist confirmed that Caldera experienced psychological disorders as a result.
Procedural Posture:
- Caldera filed a complaint in the superior court alleging disability harassment and failure to prevent harassment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment finding triable issues of fact.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial where the jury found in favor of Caldera and awarded $500,000 in damages.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for a new trial solely on the issue of excessive damages.
- Defendants appealed the liability findings, and Caldera cross-appealed the order granting a new trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence that a supervisor repeatedly mocked a subordinate's stutter in front of coworkers over a two-year period sufficient to support a jury finding of severe or pervasive harassment under FEHA?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to constitute severe or pervasive harassment because the conduct was directed specifically at the plaintiff, occurred frequently over a significant period, and took place in front of peers. The court reasoned that unlike cases involving isolated comments not directed at a plaintiff (such as Hughes or Brennan), the conduct here was targeted and public. The testimony established that the harassment was 'pervasive' enough to be considered part of the prison's culture and 'severe' enough to cause psychological harm. Furthermore, the jury was entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances, and the repetition of the mocking by a supervisor in front of others created an abusive working environment. Consequently, the employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent this harassment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'severe or pervasive' standard in California disability harassment law. It distinguishes targeted, public humiliation from isolated or non-directed offensive comments found in prior precedents. The court emphasized that a 'culture' of mockery, testified to by a third party (the psychologist), supports a finding of pervasiveness. Additionally, the decision enforces strict procedural compliance regarding new trial motions; because the trial court failed to file its statement of reasons for granting a new trial within the statutory 10-day limit under Section 657, the appellate court reinstated the original jury verdict of $500,000, reversing the new trial order. This serves as a warning to trial judges regarding statutory deadlines.
