Cooter v. A. Nat'l Golf Club
| Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | B245137 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CARLY L. COOTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ANGELES NATIONAL GOLF CLUB et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC439058)
APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mel Red Recana, Judge. Judgment and order denying motion to enforce settlement affirmed; order on motion to strike or tax costs affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.
Briskin, Latzanich & Pene and Katherine B. Pene; Law Offices of Ann A. Hull and Ann A. Hull for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Gordon & Rees, Roger M. Mansukhani, Matthew G. Kleiner and Erik T. Johnson for Defendants and Respondents.
____________________
Carly L. Cooter appeals a judgment in favor of Angeles National Golf Club (the Golf Club) and Angeles National Restaurant Service (the Restaurant) (collectively Angeles National) after a jury trial. The jury found in favor of both defendants on Cooter's causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation, harassment, sex discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation, and failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks. Cooter contends the trial court erred by excluding certain evidence, admitting other evidence, and refusing to allow her to amend her complaint to conform to proof at trial. She also appeals postjudgment orders denying her motion to enforce a settlement agreement and denying in part her motion to strike or tax costs.
We conclude that the trial court erred by excluding certain "me too" evidence of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation against other employees, but that the error was harmless. We further conclude that Cooter has shown no prejudicial error in the admission, over her objection, of certain evidence. We also reject Cooter's argument that the court erred by excluding all of her evidence of race or national origin discrimination and by denying Cooter leave to amend her complaint to conform to proof at trial. Finally, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Cooter's motion to enforce a postjudgment settlement agreement, but we reverse the order denying in part Cooter's motion to strike or tax costs in light of Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97 (Williams) and Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1040 (Roman).
The Golf Club operates a golf course. The Restaurant operates a restaurant and beverage service at the golf course. Cooter began working at the golf course in August2004 serving beverages from a cart. She became the supervisor of all beverage cart workers in 2006.
In July 2007 Cooter approached a group of four men on the golf course, greeted them, and offered them drinks from her beverage cart. One of the men, whom she knew as Shawn, commented to his companions about her breasts. They all laughed and drove off. She later encountered the same group of golfers at another hole and again offered them drinks. As she reached into her beverage cart for the drinks, she felt two hands from behind her squeezing her breasts hard and she heard laughter. She turned around and kicked the man who had grabbed her breasts in the shin, cursed at him, and told him not to touch her. When she turned away from him, he grabbed her hips from behind, simulated coitus, and stated, She turned, kicked him again, and heard more laughter. She then drove away. Cooter was very upset and felt humiliated.
Cooter went to her supervisor, Morgan Fone, and told her about the incident. Fone stated that she did not know what do to and instructed Cooter to speak with another manager, Ben Krug. When Cooter spoke with Krug, Krug told her to allow the golfers to apologize to her in person, which she refused to do. She then received a voicemail message from Shawn (with other male voices in the background) cursing at her and stating that someone had reported she had been sexually harassed on the golf course, which was "f'n bullshit." The message upset and frightened her.
Cooter went to Krug's office and asked what he had told the golfers to make them so angry with her. Krug stated that he had confronted the golfers about her complaint. When Cooter told Krug about the voicemail message, Krug told her to call them back so he could determine the truth of the matter. Cooter was unhappy but agreed to make the call on speakerphone. Shawn answered the call, told her that they were only joking around, and apologized. Krug indicated that the matter was resolved. Pursuant to Krug's request, Cooter completed an incident report. Cooter subsequently learned that someone left the incident report on the counter in the pro shop where other employees and patrons could see it. Several employees expressed concerns to her about the incident. One of the patrons asked her whether she was "the girl that was groped out here."
The next day Andy Nakano, chief operating officer of both the Golf Club and the Restaurant, called Cooter to discuss the incident. She told him that she was unhappy with the way Krug had handled the situation. Andy Nakano appeared sympathetic, but he stated that she should not have kicked the customer. Shin Nakano, the Golf Club's director of operations and the Restaurant's chief operating officer, asked Cooter to draft a sexual harassment policy for the company. Cooter agreed and drafted a policy, which was distributed to other employees.
Cooter felt that management treated her differently after the incident and scrutinized her more closely. Shin Nakano called Cooter a "drama queen." Management introduced new uniforms that Cooter felt did not fit well around the chest and were uncomfortably tight in the crotch, and management did not allow her to alter her uniform.
On December 19, 2008 Cooter wrote a letter to Shin Nagano stating that she did not feel appreciated anymore and giving two weeks' notice. Shin Nagano said that he did not want her to leave and that he would make her the main bartender at a new clubhouse that was scheduled to open in the spring and would keep her on call for special events. She agreed to stay. Management, however, did not schedule her for any work after that date, despite her requests, and never hired her as a bartender for the new clubhouse.
In February 2009 Cooter sent Shin Nagano an email asking if she could work as a bartender in the new clubhouse. He responded by email on February 20, 2009 stating that he did not know when the clubhouse would open and that there were no events planned. He also stated that he would have the new food and beverage manager contact her.
In April 2009 Luis Villa, the food and beverage manager, called Cooter to interview her for the new bartender position. She thought that Villa was very rude and unprofessional during the interview, and she felt insulted that she had to interview for the position after working at the golf course for several years. Villa told her that they "already had a guy" for the bartender position. She never heard back from Villa after the interview.
On February 21, 2010 Cooter filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (Department). She received a right-to-sue notice.
On June 3, 2010 Cooter filed this action against the Golf Club, the Restaurant, and several individuals. She asserted causes of action for (1) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (2) retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) harassment in violation of FEHA, (6) sex discrimination in violation of FEHA, (7) failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, (8) failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, and other wages due, and (9) breach of contract.1
Angeles National filed 22 motions in limine, four of which are involved in this appeal. Motion in limine I sought to exclude evidence of lawsuits or administrative claims by other employees against Angeles National. Angeles National argued that this evidence was irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and "inadmissible to prove conduct on a specific occasion" under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a). The trial court granted the motion in part, "[l]imited to lawsuits or claims filed with an administrative agency by any other former or current employee of" the Golf Club or the Restaurant.
Motion in limine J sought to exclude evidence of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation that Cooter had not perceived or had occurred outside her presence. Angeles National argued that evidence of other alleged acts of sexual harassment was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), as character or propensity evidence to prove misconduct. Angeles National also argued that evidence of statements directed at others and not perceived by Cooter was inadmissible hearsay, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial, confusing, and time-consuming under Evidence Code section 352. The trial court granted the motion in part and excluded evidence of the hiring of prostitutes to work on the golf course, requiring employees to wear lingerie, broadcasting images of female workers' posteriors, and "not taking complaints of sexual harassments and doing nothing to stop them." The...
To continue reading
Request your trial