The California Court of Appeal has reinstated significant jury awards for two Los Angeles Police Department officers who claimed gender discrimination and retaliation against the City of Los Angeles. In the case of Glick v. Los Angeles (B334953), the court decided that the trial court had wrongly reduced the damages awarded to the officers, Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia.
This ruling is crucial as it not only affects Glick and Garcia, who were awarded over $13 million combined, but also sets a precedent for future cases involving claims of discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. The decision emphasizes the importance of jury discretion in determining damages for emotional distress and economic loss.
Background
Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia are both LAPD officers who filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles after they were subjected to disciplinary actions following an incident involving a suspect, Raul C. In January 2017, Raul was arrested for driving under the influence and later alleged that unknown officers had mistreated him while in custody. An internal investigation was launched, resulting in Glick and Garcia being removed from their field duties.
The officers claimed that the City discriminated against them based on their gender and retaliated against them for their actions during the investigation. They sought damages under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, asserting that the treatment they received was not only unfair but also damaging to their careers and emotional well-being.
After a jury trial, Glick was awarded $8,621,358, and Garcia received $4.5 million. However, the trial court later granted the City’s motion for a new trial on damages, arguing that the jury's awards were excessive and not supported by sufficient evidence. This led to both parties appealing the decision.
The Ruling
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order for a new trial and reinstated the original jury awards. The court found that the trial court had abused its discretion by capping the amount of damages for emotional distress and by rejecting Glick's testimony regarding his future economic damages.
The court ruled, "The trial court abused its discretion by capping the amount of damages a jury can award for so-called 'garden-variety emotional distress.'" The court also noted that the jury's damages awards were not excessive as a matter of law or unsupported by the evidence.
The judges involved in the ruling were Goorvitch, Acting Presiding Justice Chavez, and Richardson. They emphasized that the jury had the right to determine the appropriate amount of damages based on the evidence presented during the trial.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving workplace discrimination and retaliation claims. It reinforces the idea that juries have the authority to award substantial damages based on the emotional and economic impacts of such discrimination. The court's decision could encourage other individuals facing similar situations to pursue legal action, knowing that juries can award meaningful compensation.
The ruling also clarifies the standards for determining emotional distress damages. The court highlighted that expert testimony is not always necessary for juries to assess emotional damages, as many experiences are within the common knowledge of jurors.
What's Next
The City of Los Angeles may seek to appeal this decision to the California Supreme Court, but details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. For now, Glick and Garcia will receive their awarded damages, which could serve as a precedent for other officers and employees facing discrimination in the workplace.