Grobeson

Grobeson v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 798·190 Cal. App. 4th 778·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2040·110 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1706·93 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,048
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 2, 2010No. B207551California7,933 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Flier, J.

A jury rejected Mitchell Grobeson’s claims that the City of Los Angeles (City) and Daniel Watson unlawfully retaliated against Grobeson in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) and Labor Code section 1101 et seq.; that City and Watson unlawfully discriminated against Grobeson and harassed him in violation of the aforesaid statutes; that City constructively discharged *783 Grobeson; and that appellant Watson unlawfully retaliated against Grobeson and harassed him in violation of FEHA and Labor Code section 1101 et seq.

The trial court granted Grobeson’s motion for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct as to the discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge claims in City’s instance and also on the retaliation claim against Watson. The appeal is from this order.

Grobeson cross-appeals from the trial court’s denial of his equitable claim for reinstatement as a police officer. Grobeson also cross-appeals from the order granting City’s motion for summary judgment on Grobeson’s claim under title 42 United States Code section 1983 and the order denying Grobeson’s motion for a directed verdict.…

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.