|
2520 REVIEW DENIED A plaintiff can establish that an employer's explanation for negative employment action was a pretext for retaliation by direct evidence of statements made by supervisors indicating an intent to retaliate and/or by comparative evidence showing that persons similarly situated received different treatment; the discussion of a case with her husband by a juror who was then removed and replaced by an alternate, abusive language by a juror directed at other jurors who disagreed with him, and the writing down of amounts on slips of paper by jurors as a beginning for discussion of damages were not sufficient misconduct to infect a verdict and require a new trial; damages of $450,000 for emotional distress resulting from employment discrimination were not excessive.CitationIWEKAOGWU v CITY OF LA (City Engineer) 75 CA4 803 [See: GovC 12940 etseq; McDonnell Douglas v Green 411 US 792; Flait v North American 3 CA4 467; Penk v Oregon 816 F2 458; English v Lin 26 CA4 1358, T/AT 8/94; Chronakis v Windsor 14 CA4 1058, T/AT 6/93; Fredrics v Paige 29 CA4 1642, T/AT AT 12/94; Tillery v Richland 158 CA3 957; Watson v Dep't of Rehab 212 CA3 1271; Bihun v AT&T 13 CA4 976, T/AT 4/93]
|
|
