Pollock
Pollock v. Kelso
Opinion
Opinion
Wiley, J.
Filed 1/8/
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
PAMELA POLLOCK, B320574
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC676917 v.
MICHAEL KELSO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lia Martin, Judge. Affirmed. Lipeles Law Group, Kevin A. Lipeles, Thomas H. Schelly, and Julian Bellenghi for Plaintiff and Respondent. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Lann G. McIntyre and Tracy Forbath for Defendant and Appellant. ____________________
We affirm an attorney fee award. I In 2018, Pamela Pollock sued her supervisor Michael Kelso for sexual harassment and, on grounds of race, refusing to promote her. Pollock alleged Kelso asked her for sexual intercourse in 2016 and, after she rejected him, he promoted five less qualified people of other races to positions she sought. The trial court ruled Pollock’s suit was time-barred. We affirmed. (Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 532.) In 2021, the Supreme Court reversed and rendered three holdings. First, the statute of…