In Pantoja v. Anton, the Court was asked to decide whether the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to hear “me too” evidence, that is, evidence of the employer’s alleged gender bias in the form of harassing activity against women employees other than the plaintiff. In particular, the “me too” evidence related to harassing activity that occurred outside the plaintiff’s presence and at times other than when plaintiff was employed.

Plaintiff filed her complaint against her former boss and employer claiming, among other things, gender bias and sexual harassment.  The trial court ruled that evidence of sexual harassment by her boss of other employees was admissible only if it took place in Pantoja’s presence or otherwise affected her working environment. After she lost in trial, the plaintiff appealed, arguing it was prejudicial error to prohibit the “me too” evidence. The Court of Appeals agreed.  The Court held that the trial court’s ruling erroneously disregarded the possibility that this me-too evidence could be relevant to prove her boss’s intent when he used profanity and touched employees, and could also be used to show gender bias. Further, it held the evidence would have enabled the jury to evaluate the credibility of her boss and his other witnesses’ assertions, and let the plaintiff rebut factual claims made by defense witnesses.

For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.