Appeals Court in California Upholds Age Discrimination Judgment (A Lesson for Employers)

Earlier this year, the California Third District Court of Appeal upheld an age discrimination judgment in favor of an employee. In the case of Hoglund v. Sierra Nev. Memorial-Miners Hosp., the appellate court found sufficient evidence to justify a finding of age-based discrimination. Here, our California employer litigation lawyer analyzes the case in more detail and highlights the lesson for employers.

Case Review: Hoglund v. Sierra Nev. Memorial-Miners Hospital 

The Facts 

Plaintiff Jessica Hoglund filed a workplace age discrimination lawsuit against defendant Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital. She was initially hired by the company in 2004 as a phlebotomist trainee. She was promoted to laboratory supervisor in 2011. Ms. Hoglund argued that a specific employee of the company, who eventually became her direct supervisor, engaged in a prolonged campaign of age-based discrimination and age-based harassment and made comments like “we need to hire young people” as they “catch on fast.” Hoglund asserted her rights were violated under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the case went to a bench trial. The court found the employer liable for age discrimination, and Ms. Hoglund was awarded $1,431,800 in damages. The defendant brought an appeal on a number of different grounds.

 The Appeal 

The Hospital argued that the evidence simply did not warrant the court’s finding of age discrimination. Additionally, the employer argued that even if age discrimination was found by the court, the amount of damages awarded was wholly unreasonable, given the nature of the allegations.

On review, the California Third District Court of Appeal found against the employer. On the first point, the appellate court emphasized that the plaintiff brought “substantial evidence” to support her age discrimination complaint. It noted that she presented both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

On the second point, damages, the court found that, as a technical matter, it cannot review the employer’s claim. Indeed, the court stated that, “we may not consider the merits of these arguments because defendants did not adequately preserve the issue for appeal.” Employers must file a timely motion for a new trial to challenge “alleged” excessive damages.

 The Lesson 

Employers should take note that this case offers an important lesson for handling workplace age discrimination claims under FEHA. To start, the case highlights the importance of taking employee complaints seriously and thoroughly investigating them to avoid litigation. Beyond that, it also emphasizes the key obligation of employers and their counsel to preserve issues properly for appeal during litigation. Your attorney’s failure to file timely pleadings that include all relevant issues could potentially eliminate your opportunity for an appeal.

 Contact Our California Employment Discrimination Lawyer for Employers Today

At Sloat Law Group, APC, our California employment litigation attorney is committed to protecting the rights and interests of clients by litigating your case with excellence. If you are an employer with questions about allegations of discrimination, we are here to help. Contact our employment law firm today for a confidential consultation. Our firm works with employers throughout the State of California.

Source:

 law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2024/c097065.html