©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 369 to make binding pronouncements of law concerning what evidence may be privileged or otherwise inadmissible in a federal court action involving claims based on federal law”). 26 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1960 (“Any finding of fact or law, judgment, conclusion, or final order made by a hearing officer, administrative law judge, or any person with the authority to make findings of fact or law in any action or proceeding before the appeals board, shall not be conclusive or binding in any separate or subsequent action or proceeding, and shall not be used as evidence in any separate or subsequent action or proceeding, between an individual and his or her present or prior employer brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts.”). See also Pichon v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 212 Cal. App. 3d 488 (1989) (UIAB decision finding that an individual was discharged for misconduct does not estop him from relitigating in court the reasons for his discharge). 27 See, e.g., Evid. Code § 780(h) (trier of fact determining credibility of a witness may consider prior inconsistent statement); Evid. Code § 1220 (admissibility of admissions).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4