Brown

Brown v. City of Sacramento

Good Law
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 801·37 Cal. App. 5th 587
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 17, 2019C082826California7,255 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Renner, J.

*589 Plaintiff Wendell Brown sued his employer, the City of Sacramento (City), for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). ( Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. ) A jury returned a verdict in Brown's favor. The City moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial. The trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in part, finding that Brown failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to some of the *590 acts found to be retaliatory. The trial court denied the motion with respect to other acts and effectively denied the motion for a new trial. 1 *805 The City appeals from the order partially denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing the remaining retaliation and discrimination claims are time-barred and barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The City also appeals from the order partially denying the motion for a new trial, arguing that juror misconduct deprived the City of a fair trial, and the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of the purportedly unexhausted and time-barred claims. Finding no error, we…

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.