A California case published in late 2023, Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., now makes it difficult for employers and defendants to introduce relevant character evidence at trial.
In 2008, Eunice Argueta (Argueta) was hired by a freight operations company in El Segundo, California, eventually acquired by Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. In late 2016 and early 2017, five of her subordinates filed written complaints against her, making claims that she was threatening, harassing, bullying, discriminatory, and emotionally abusive.
In early May 2017, Argueta’s supervisor, Dzung Nguyen (Nguyen), placed her on paid leave during an investigation into a dispute between Argueta and one of her co-workers. On the last day of Argueta’s leave, she filed a complaint with Worldwide against Nguyen for sexual harassment, which included claims that he inappropriately touched her face, hair, and body multiple times; called her “my baby,” “my sweetheart,” and “my girl;” and messaged her using inappropriate emojis for the workplace.
Just over one year later, Argueta resigned, and one year after that, Worldwide fired Nguyen as a result of an investigation into additional claims filed against him by other employees alleging sexual harassment — claims with similar allegations to those lodged by Argueta.
Argueta sued Worldwide for sexual harassment and retaliation, and the jury returned a verdict in Worldwide’s favor. Before trial, Argueta moved in limina to preclude the substance of the various complaints (filed against her by her coworkers) from evidence, on the grounds that they were prejudicial. When the court allowed the complaints to be read into evidence at trial and the jury found for the defense, she filed a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied her motion.
Argueta appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ordering a new trial of Argueta’s claims. The Court found that the admission of the evidence against Argueta was a prejudicial error. Specifically, the Court held that the “jury should be given the opportunity to evaluate Argueta’s credibility, untainted by improper evidence.”
Specifically, the Court found that the substance of the complaints against Argueta was irrelevant to assessing whether or not (i) she was offended by Nguyen’s conduct, (ii) it affected her perception of Nguyen’s conduct, and/or (iii) she had motive to fabricate any of her allegations regarding Nguyen’s conduct.
The decision likely eliminates an employer’s ability to defend a wrongful termination action and sexual harassment claims by character testimony that is not deemed directly relevant to the claims made by the employee. This may eliminate the ability to show that an employee has fabricated a claim against the employer.
The best result is not to end up in Court. If you suspect a potential employee claim or receive one immediately contact your counsel. Often these matters can be promptly resolved before they end up in Court.
The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.
Leave a Reply