Adams v. LA Unified School Dist. 8/17/04 CA2/5

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B159310

Case Date: 12/01/2004

Preview:Filed 8/17/04 Adams v. Los Angeles Unifed School Dist. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE JANIS ADAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. B159310 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC235667)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kenneth R. Freeman, Judge. Affirmed with directions. Jones Day, Elwood Lui, Scott D. Bertzyk, and Scott M. Lidman for Defendant and Appellant. Orren & Orren, Tyna Thall Orren, Lowell H. Orren, for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Janis Adams, appeals from an order granting a new trial motion filed by defendant, Los Angeles Unified School District. Defendant in turn cross-appeals from an order denying its judgment notwithstanding the verdict motion. In 2003, the Legislature

enacted a two-sentence amendment to Government Code1 section 12940, subdivision (j)(1) which is part of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the act). As will be noted, we conclude: the 2003 amendment to the act applies to this case and an employer can be liable for nonemployee sexual harassment of an employee; the case was not tried using the second sentence of the 2003 amendment to the act; hence, we affirm the order granting the new trial motion; and we remand for a retrial where the new correct standard for evaluating nonemployee harassment of an employee will be presented to the trier of fact. II. THE 2003 AMENDMENT TO THE ACT 1. Summary of analysis Plaintiff argues defendant was required to take steps to prevent harassment directed at her by students. We agree. There are three versions of the sexual harassment provisions of the act in section 12940 that are relevant to our decision. The first is section 12940, subdivision (i) as it was adopted in 1984. (Stats. 1984, ch. 1754,

Download Adams v. LA Unified School Dist. 8/17/04 CA2/5.pdf