Rosenman

Rosenman v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 656·2001 Daily Journal DAR 8971·91 Cal. App. 4th 859·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7313
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 21, 2001B131078California5,442 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

This is an employment discrimination case under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we hold the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in admitting certain documents used by respondents to impeach appellant’s testimony. Accordingly, we affirm the verdict in favor of respondents. However, in the published portion of the opinion, we reverse the award of attorney fees to respondents, because the trial court failed to find appellant’s case was frivolous, unreasonable, or totally without foundation, and because based on the record no such findings reasonably could have been made.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Plaintiff and appellant Shari Cohen Rosenman was hired by the law firm of Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, which attracts high-profile clients and handles complex litigation, as an associate in the litigation department in 1989. As an associate, Rosenman worked long hours under intense pressure and consistently received favorable performance reviews and bonuses. Her career plan was to become a partner in the Firm, and ultimately to become a judge. In January 1996, Rosenman achieved a…

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.