On July 30, 2026, a California appellate court reversed a trial court’s ruling that had slashed a combined $13.1 million jury verdict in a gender discrimination case down to $375,000, holding that courts may not impose a de facto cap on noneconomic damages in employment discrimination cases simply because a plaintiff foregoes expert testimony on emotional distress.

Quick Hits

• A California appellate court reinstated a $13.1 million jury verdict in a gender discrimination case, rejecting trial court limits on noneconomic damages.
• The court found the trial court had erroneously found a cap on damages for noneconomic damages, even when limiting claims to “usual” distress.
• The court further held that witnesses are competent to testify to their own retirement plans to support future economic damages.

In Glick v. City of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, found the “trial court abused its discretion by capping a jury’s damages for what the trial court called “garden-variety emotional distress,” and “erroneously” rejected the plaintiff’s own testimony about future economic damages.

Background

The case involved an internal investigation of police officers stemming from allegations made by an individual arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The suspect had alleged mistreatment and that officers failed to request medical attention in a timely manner. Two male police officers who were investigated and...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiugFBVV95cUxNem9FcEV4VWNSbFhSSDhzSm1Z...