LOS ANGELES — A California appeals court has overturned a $10 million jury ruling in a sexual harassment lawsuit against the Los Angeles Community College District, citing significant prejudicial errors made during the trial. The court’s decision indicated that the comments and actions of the trial judge, Robert S. Draper, clouded the proceedings.
The appellate judges ordered a new trial after determining that Draper’s remarks, which were described as “bizarre” and “inflammatory,” violated the principles of fair trial. Their opinion emphasized that these comments, along with flawed evidentiary rulings, unfairly influenced the outcome of the case.
In the ruling, Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes stated that the judge’s conduct appeared driven by personal biases, disconnected from the established rules of evidence. The court found that Draper’s decisions allowed improper evidence to be presented, severely compromising the fairness expected in a judicial process.
Representing the college district in the original case were attorneys from Meyers Nave, including Janice P. Brown, Nadia P. Bermudez, and Margaret W. Rosequist. These representatives did not provide comments before the deadline for this report.
The plaintiff, Sabrena Odom, is a tenured professor and administrator at Los Angeles Southwest Community College. She filed the suit in 2018, claiming sexual harassment and retaliation by Vice President Howard Irvin. Odom alleged that Irvin persistently made unwanted advances and threatened her when she rebuffed his attempts, leading her to report the behavior to the chancellor with little response.
Following the jury’s decision in her favor, the defendants sought a new trial due to the trial judge’s conduct. According to the appellate decision, Draper made inappropriate references to race that were unrelated to the case. He reportedly invoked outdated terminology and made unfounded references to the civil rights movement and the racial background of the defense attorney.
In addition to his racial commentary, Draper’s remarks included inappropriate sexual innuendos. These comments led the defense to seek his disqualification. He ultimately was disqualified by Orange County Superior Court Judge Cheri Pham earlier this year.
The appellate court’s opinion also critiqued the inclusion of dated newspaper articles that erroneously suggested prior sexual abuse convictions against Irvin, along with testimony from a former student who had previously filed a complaint against him.
The judges noted concerns over the potential influence of Draper’s alleged “persistent racial and gender bias” affecting his rulings during the trial. They ruled that the abusive and arbitrary nature of the judge’s decisions warranted the reversal of the verdict.
In conclusion, the appellate court firmly established that the evidence and rulings presented under Draper’s oversight did not adhere to legal standards. The decision has significant implications, as it emphasizes the necessity of impartiality in the judicial process and the importance of adhering strictly to legal protocols.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.