“Me too” Evidence Held Admissible in Sexual Harassment Case

“Me too” Evidence Held Admissible in Sexual Harassment Case

October 25, 2011
Family Medical Leave

The Fifth District decided on August 9, 2011 that the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to hear “me too” evidence, or evidence of sexual harassment directed at employees other than the plaintff, in a sexual harassment case. The court explained, “Pantoja argues that the court erred when it ruled … that evidence of sexual harassment by Anton of other employees was admissible only if it took place in Pantoja’s presence or otherwise affected her working environment. We agree that it was error for the court not to admit this evidence.” The court went on to state, “Evidence that Anton harassed other women outside Pantoja’s presence could have assisted the jury not by showing that Anton had a propensity to harass women sexually, but by showing that he harbored a discriminatory intent or bias based on gender.”

This is a great decision for plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases.

All Posts
  • Our Address

    Bain Mazza & Debski LLP
    951 Mariners Island Blvd., Ste. 300
    San Mateo, CA 94404

  • Phone/fax Numbers

    F: (650) 763-3933

  • Get In Touch

NUVEW | Copyright 2018. All rights reserved | Resources | Terms of Use

Attorney Advertising. This information is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Past results and testimonials are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of the outcome of your case, and should not be construed as such. Past results cannot guarantee future performance. Any result in a single case is not meant to create an expectation of similar results in future matters because each case involves many different factors, therefore, results will differ on a case-by-case basis.