Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., recently faced a setback in court as the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reversed a judgment previously decided in their favor. The case, Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, involved a plaintiff, Eunices Argueta, who alleged sexual harassment and retaliation against her former employer. Argueta claimed she was harassed by a Worldwide Flight Services employee, Mr. Nguyen, and that the company failed to adequately address the issue.
The initial proceedings stemmed from complaints made against Argueta herself by several employees under her supervision. These complaints cited bullying, harassment, and misconduct. Subsequently, Argueta lodged a formal complaint against Mr. Nguyen, accusing him of sexual harassment. Worldwide Flight Services conducted an internal investigation and issued a “Letter of Concern” to Nguyen, outlining conditions for his continued employment.
Citing a hostile work environment, Argueta resigned from her position. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury initially sided with Worldwide Flight Services. Argueta’s subsequent motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were both denied by the trial court. Undeterred, Argueta appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court improperly allowed the admission of evidence detailing the complaints made against her by other employees.
The Court of Appeal sided with Argueta. It determined that allowing the substance of complaints against Argueta as evidence was indeed prejudicial and erroneous. The appellate court reasoned that this evidence held minimal relevance to Argueta’s claims of sexual harassment and carried a high risk of unfairly influencing the jury’s perception of her character. This could have led the jury to view Argueta negatively, distracting from the core issue of whether she experienced harassment at Worldwide Flight Services. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision to deny Argueta’s motion for a new trial. The court deemed it unnecessary to rule on her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict given the reversal.
This ruling means the case will likely return to the trial court for a new trial, where the focus will be more narrowly tailored to the allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation against Worldwide Flight Services, without the prejudicial evidence that led to the appeal.
