Catchpole

Catchpole v. Brannon

Bad Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 585·36 Cal. App. 4th 237·42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440·95 Daily Journal DAR 8431·68 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 270
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 1995A062338California7,134 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

This case presents the unusual question whether the alleged gender bias of the trial judge requires us to set aside his judgment.

Appellant, Marie Catchpole, commenced this litigation in the Superior Court of Humboldt County, asserting claims of sexual harassment, assault and battery, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against respondents, Melody and Jay Rane, owners of Eureka Burger King (EBK), where appellant had been employed; R-5 Enterprises (doing business as Eureka Burger King), the Ranes’ corporation; Kent Greenhalgh, a manager at EBK; and Rudy Brannon, a former assistant manager at EBK and his wife, Lorraine Brannon. Judgment against appellant was rendered by a superior court judge sitting without a jury. Appellant contends the judgment must be reversed not only because of the gender bias of the trial judge, but due to the absence of substantial evidence to support the court’s findings that she was not sexually harassed by being subject to a hostile work environment, that she was not retaliated against after reporting Brannon’s assault, and that the owners of EBK are not liable for the harassment she suffered. Appellant also challenges…

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.