Issue
In Kotla v. The Regents of the University of California, (2004 Daily Journal, D.A.R. 917, Cal. App. 1 Dist. January 28, 2004), the California Court of Appeal (First Appellate District) addressed the issue of whether a trial court improperly allowed a human resources management expert to offer his opinion that certain facts in evidence were indicators of retaliatory discharge.
Facts
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Employer) terminated Dee Kotla’s employment for using its computers for outside work. Ms. Kotla brought a lawsuit against Employer alleging that she was discharged for retaliatory reasons. Ms. Kotla had previously voiced her concerns about gender and departmental pay disparities and had also helped a co-worker bring sexual harassment complaints to the attention of management. At trial, an expert witness in human resources management testified on Ms. Kotla’s behalf. The trial court allowed the expert to testify that certain facts in evidence were indicators of Employer’s retaliatory motive. The jury found in favor of Ms. Kotla and awarded her one million dollars in damages. Employer appealed the judgment.
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in allowing the expert to offer an opinion that certain facts were indicators of retaliation. California Evidence code section 801 limits opinion testimony of expert witnesses to situations where 1) the subject of the opinion is beyond common experience and the expert’s opinion would assist the jury or judge, and 2) where the opinion is “[b]ased on matter . . . that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates.” The Court concluded that Ms. Kotla’s expert’s opinion testimony was not admissible under section 801. It found that the expert’s testimony invaded the province of the jury to draw conclusions from the evidence. The Court noted that the jurors were encouraged to give unwarranted weight to the expert’s view of the evidence in spite of the fact that the expert was in no better position than the jury to evaluate the evidence. The Court also found that the opinion testimony lacked any reliable foundation in the expert’s experience and expertise. The Court found no evidence that the expert possessed any special expertise for weighing evidence in a wrongful termination case. It noted that the process of weighing the evidence is a function of a jury, not an expert.
The Court concluded that the admission of the expert’s testimony prejudiced Employer because the testimony likely played a decisive role in the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment in favor of Ms. Kotla and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.