Goodson

Goodson v. County of Plumas

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 9, 20242:18-cv-03105California5,742 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Tiffany Goodson, No. 2:18-cv-03105-KJM-DB Plaintiff, ORDER v. County of Plumas, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Tiffany Goodson moves for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs and requests 18 injunctive relief. For the reasons below, the court grants her motion in part. 19 IT. BACKGROUND After a six-day bench trial, Goodson proved defendants Brandon Compton and the County of Plumas are liable for sexual harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). See Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law at 29-31, ECF No. 167 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940()(1)). Goodson also proved the County is liable for retaliation in violation of the FEHA. /d. at 32-36 (citing Cal Gov’t Code § 12940(h)). By contrast, she did not prove 25 her federal claims, or her claim the County had failed to prevent sexual harassment in violation of the FEHA. See id. at…

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.