Palacio

Palacio v. Peck CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 13, 2014H038824California2,203 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

I. BACKGROUND

Palacio and Peck both worked for the City of Palo Alto as utility customer service representatives between 2005 and 2013. For much of that time they worked in the same office. On January 12, 2012, Palacio filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Peck, alleging harassment in the workplace.

1 All further unspecified section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. The following day the court entered a temporary restraining order requiring Peck to stay 300 yards away from Palacio, as well as Palacio’s vehicle, home, and workplace. On February 21, 2012, the court modified the temporary restraining order to require Peck to stay just 30 feet away from Palacio, apparently to accommodate the fact that the two worked in the same office. The case was tried over the course of four days in April and May 2012. Palacio’s Testimony Palacio testified to four incidents of alleged harassment by Peck. First, Palacio testified that, in 2008, she was walking past Peck in the office when Peck intentionally rammed her shoulder into Palacio’s “like [they were in a] roller derby” and did not apologize. Second, Palacio testified that, later that year,…

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.