196 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com order to prove consent by the plaintiff or the absence of injury to the plaintiff, unless the injury alleged by the plaintiff is in the nature of loss of consortium. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to evidence of the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with the alleged perpetrator. 326 Hatai v. Dep’t of Transp., 214 Cal. App. 4th 1287, 1297-98 (2013), disapproved of on other grounds Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., 61 Cal.4th 97 (2015) (upholding decision to admit evidence that supervisor discriminated against employees who were of the same national origin and race as plaintiff, but to exclude evidence that supervisor discriminated against employees of protected classes to which plaintiff did not belong). Another Court of Appeal decision took a favorable view of “me too” evidence. Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Found., 173 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2009) (reversing summary judgment for employer in pregnancy discrimination case because of “me too” evidence of other women fired for being pregnant, as this evidence, the court opined, went to the employer’s motive, for purposes of casting doubt on the stated reasons for an adverse employment action). 327 Pinter-Brown v. Regents of Univ. of California, 48 Cal. App. 5th 55, 96 (2020) (rejecting “run of the mill propensity evidence” where no indication that other complainants or circumstances were similar to plaintiff).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4