"Me-too" evidence was erroneously excluded

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.
Related Posts
  • Hostile Work Environments: What You Should Know Read More
  • Sexual Harassment in the Remote (Online) Workplace Read More
  • Types of Sexual Harassment Read More