Kotla

Kotla v. Regents of University of California

Bad Law
115 Cal. App. 4th 283·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 109·2004 Daily Journal DAR 917·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 898·2004 WL 136753
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2004A099228, A100918California4,908 words

Opinion

Opinion

Margulies, J.

Following a jury trial, plaintiff Dee Kotla obtained a judgment for wrongful termination against the Regents of the University of California, doing business as the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Lab). The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing a human resources management expert to opine (hat certain facts in evidence were “indicators” that the Lab discharged Kotla for retaliatory reasons. We hold that the expert’s testimony was improper and prejudicial, and reverse the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Dee Kotla had worked for the Lab for 14 years before she was terminated in 1997. At the time of her discharge, she was working as a computer support technician in the Lab’s Administrative Information Systems (AIS) Department, providing network and server maintenance services for the Lab’s Plant Engineering Department.

Kotla was concerned about gender and departmental pay disparities among Lab employees and had raised that issue in meetings with management. Kotla also became an advocate for a Lab secretary she supervised, Kim Norman, who spoke with Kotla about sexual harassment she was experiencing from a male manager named Charlie…

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.