Overturning a hefty retaliation verdict, an important California appeal court ruling has put the brakes on testimony from human resource experts that usurp a jury’s role to decide your motives for terminating an employee.
Evidence Of Computer Misuse
Dee Kotla, who was a computer support technician for the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, helped a lab secretary, Kim Norman, file a sexual harassment complaint against manager Charlie Brown. Norman eventually filed a harassment lawsuit, and Kotla was called as a witness.
During a break in Kotla’s deposition, the lab’s lawyer reviewed the lab’s computer server for a file Kotla mentioned containing notes she wrote about Norman’s complaints. The lawyer came across another of Kotla’s files named “Spectrum.” Kotla stated in her deposition that she had done some programming work for Spectrum Consulting, a company run by a former lab employee.
The lawyer immediately notified the lab’s Office of Investigative Services (OIS) that she suspected Kotla was violating lab policy by misusing lab computers for outside work. The OIS disabled Kotla’s computer password and left her a voicemail message stating she was under investigation. The next day, Kotla accessed the server with a special administrative password and deleted the Spectrum files and other personal files. Kotla eventually admitted using lab computers for outside work and deleting files, and she was terminated.
Employee Sues For Retaliation
Kotla sued, charging she was fired in retaliation for her involvement in Norman’s sexual harassment lawsuit. An Alameda County jury awarded her $1 million which the trial court reduced to $745,000.
The lab appealed. It argued the trial court had erred in permitting an HR management expert to testify on Kotla’s behalf on matters that should have been left to the jury to decide—such as whether certain events leading up to Kotla’s discharge were indicators of a retaliatory motive.
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
Expert Invaded Jury’s Role As Decisionmaker
Now a California appeal court has thrown out the jury verdict. The court explained expert testimony should be excluded when it provides information of such common knowledge that ordinary individuals could reach a conclusion as competently as the expert. The court pointed to previous cases establishing that courts must exercise caution in admitting expert testimony on the issue of evaluating an employer’s motives in a discrimination case.
Here, the testimony by Kotla’s human resource expert inappropriately took over the jury’s role in evaluating and drawing conclusions from the evidence. The jury could have just as easily determined on its own whether certain events indicated the lab had a retaliatory motive in discharging Kotla, the court ruled.
What’s more, said the court, the jury might well have reached a verdict more favorable to the lab had the expert’s testimony been limited. That’s because there was substantial evidence of a nonretaliatory reason for Kotla’s termination, including Kotla’s admission that she misused the lab’s computer. Thus, the court tossed out the verdict and ordered a new trial.
Impact Of Decision
This ruling is significant because it helps to ensure that if you’re sued for discrimination or retaliation and the case goes to trial, the jury will be permitted to weigh and evaluate all of the evidence as to the reasons for discharge—and it won’t be left to the employee’s HR “expert” to second-guess your actions.
Keep in mind, however, that this decision doesn’t mean your HR department should become less vigilant in helping to ensure that employment decisions are retaliation-free.