Michail v. Fluor Mining & Metals, Inc.

Opinion

KING, J.

In this case we hold that in an action claiming employment discrimination the trial court may exercise its discretion to exclude from evidence a determination issued by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upon the same claim.

Lucie G. Michail appeals from a judgment in an employment discrimination action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) We affirm.

Michail was hired by Fluor Mining and Metals, Inc. (Fluor) as a principal electrical engineer. She was later denied a promotion to chief engineer and eventually was terminated due to “lack of work.”

[286]

Michail initially lodged a complaint with the EEOC claiming the denial of a promotion and her termination were because of her sex. After an investigation the EEOC issued a “Determination” finding there was reasonable cause to believe Michail was terminated due to her sex, but no reasonable cause to believe she was denied a promotion for that reason. A “Determination” is issued by EEOC without a hearing at which the employer can present evidence and cross-examine opposing witnesses. It results in an invitation by EEOC to begin a process of conciliation to attempt to resolve the dispute.

Thereafter, Michail filed this action for employment discrimination, based upon the FEE A. At trial Fluor’s motion

in limine

to exclude evidence of the EEOC determination was granted. A jury subsequently rendered a verdict in favor of Fluor.

Michail contends the court should have followed federal decisions which have applied a per se standard to the admissibility of EEOC determinations.

1

Fluor responds that the EEOC determination was properly excluded because it was irrelevant and because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court reasoned the evidence was not relevant and was hearsay, and “it would be extremely prejudicial to present it to a jury.”