Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Servs., Inc., 97 Cal. App. 5^th 822 (2023)

Eunices Argueta worked as an agent in the import department of the employer, a freight operations company, reporting to Dzung Nguyen whom she claimed had sexually harassed her. A jury returned a defense verdict, and Argueta filed a motion for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which the trial court denied. Over the spirited dissent of Justice Grimes, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Argueta was entitled to a new trial based on the lower court’s admitting evidence of multiple complaints that other employees had made against Argueta. The complaints accused Argueta of “bullying, harassment, retaliation, yelling, making threats and other bad behavior, including discriminating against a pregnant subordinate employee.” The trial court denied Argueta’s motion in limine regarding the employee complaints against her on the ground that they were relevant to “the plaintiff’s motive for making the complaints of sexual harassment.” Argueta contended and the Court of Appeal agreed that the evidence in question was improper and irrelevant character evidence and that, in any event, motive is not an element of a sexual harassment claim and that the employer would be strictly liable for the harassment regardless of what motive Argueta may have had to complain.