On August 9, 2011, in
Pantoja v. Anton, (California Courts of Appeal – 5th District, No. F058414) Pantoja
alleged discrimination and sexual harassment. Anton filed a motion to
exclude Pantoja's evidence unless Pantoja personally witnessed the
acts and the acts adversely affected her working environment. The trial
court held that other witnesses would only be permitted after it was shown
that Pantoja personally witnessed and was adversely affected. The jury
found for the defense after Pantoja's motion to allow testimony to
impeach Anton was denied.
The appeals court found that the evidence was admissible to show a discriminatory
or biased intent. Further they found that the ruling was incorrect because
the intent of Anton was in dispute and evidence that Anton harassed other
women where Pantoja did not observe it would have helped show intent.
Thus the evidence should have been admitted.
