## Facts

- Augustine Caldera worked for roughly 20 years as a correctional officer for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and had a stutter affecting his speech.
- Caldera worked in an administrative-segregation unit within a prison environment.
- Sergeant James Grove, a coworker who at times supervised Caldera, repeatedly mocked and mimicked Caldera’s stutter over about two years, including in front of other employees.
- In one incident during shift change with about 24 officers present, Grove responded to Caldera with “F-f-f-f-f[expletive] you” and continued the stutter-mocking when Caldera threatened to complain.
- Testimony described a workplace “culture of joking” about Caldera’s speech impediment; witnesses observed mocking on approximately 12 occasions, including during a supervisor training program.
- Expert testimony supported that Caldera suffered psychological harm attributed to the harassment.
- A jury found severe and pervasive disability-based harassment under FEHA and awarded Caldera $500,000 in noneconomic damages.
- The trial court granted defendants a new trial limited to damages, leaving liability intact, based on the court’s view that the damages award was excessive.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that disability-based harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment under FEHA.
2. Whether alleged jury-instruction errors required reversal.
3. Whether an alleged evidentiary error warranted reversal or was forfeited.
4. Whether the new-trial order on damages was invalid because the trial court failed to timely file a statement of reasons as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 657.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on liability, concluding substantial evidence supported the jury’s severe-or-pervasive harassment finding.
- The Court of Appeal rejected defendants’ claims of instructional error as not prejudicial.
- The Court of Appeal held defendants’ evidentiary challenge was forfeited for lack of proper preservation.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the order granting a new trial on damages because the trial court’s statement of reasons was untimely under Code of Civil Procedure § 657, resulting in reinstatement of the $500,000 noneconomic damages award.

## Legal Principles

- FEHA harassment liability requires proof of unwelcome conduct because of a protected characteristic that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile or abusive work environment.
- On substantial-evidence review, an appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the verdict and does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury’s factual determinations.
- Instructional error warrants reversal only if it is both erroneous and prejudicial.
- Evidentiary claims not properly preserved in the trial court may be forfeited on appeal.
- A new-trial order under Code of Civil Procedure § 657 must be supported by a timely written statement of reasons; noncompliance with the statutory timing requirement requires reversal of the new-trial order.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s FEHA disability-harassment liability verdict based on substantial evidence of repeated, publicly humiliating mockery by a supervisor within a permissive workplace culture, and it reinstated the $500,000 noneconomic damages award after reversing a damages-only new-trial order for failure to timely provide reasons under Code of Civil Procedure § 657.


Caldera v. Department of Corr. & Rehab., 25 Cal. App. 5th 31, 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)