Pollock

Pollock v. Kelso

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 2025B320574California1,966 words

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.