Friday, July 31, 2026
Page 3
$8.6 Million Award in ‘Garden Variety’ Lawsuit Is Restored
C.A. Says Judge Abused Discretion in Granting New Trial Unless Officers, in Action Against City of Los Angeles for Gender Discrimination, Agree to Slashing of Damages Where Cumulative Award by Jury Was $13,121,358
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday that a judge erred in granting new trials unless one male Los Angeles police officer agreed to a jury’s award of more than $8.6 million in a “garden variety” gender-discrimination lawsuit being slashed to $250,000 and another plaintiff consented to damages being lowered from $4.5 million to $125,000.
The officers did not consent, appealing from the postrial order, while the city cross-appealed, asserting that the damages were still too high.
Justice Stephen Goorvitch authored the opinion reversing the order by then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael P. Linfield, now litigation director for a law firm, and restoring the jury awards to officers Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia.
Those awards, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, were based on disciplinary actions having been instituted against the male officers but not their respective female partners in connection with indignities to a man who was arrested for driving under the influence after his vehicle struck a child. At the police station, the inebriated suspect, Raul Chavez, passed out, but at other times was conscious but unable to recognize who did what.
‘Unknown Officers’
Goorvitch recited that according to a complaint to the department by Chavez, “unknown officers shaved off his eyebrows, shaved his mustache to look like Adolf Hitler’s, and drew a penis and wrote the word ‘puto’ on his abdomen with a marker….”
The explanation given to a police union representative as to why Glick and Garcia were relieved from duty and required to remain at home pending resolution of proceedings before the Board of Rights, and their female partners were not subjected like treatment, was, “This is something guys would do, not females.”
An arrest of Chavez took place on Jan. 26, 2017. His allegations were made at the police station a few days later; an investigation ensued; it was determined that the matter of what officer engaged in mistreatment was “unresolved”; then-Police Chief Charlie Beck rejected that finding, proclaiming on Jan. 18, 2018, that Glick and Garcia were to be fired, but deciding on March 29 of that year that a reprimand for not promptly arranging for medical treatment would suffice.
Discretion Abused
Goorvitch—joined by Acting Presiding Justice Victoria M. Chavez and Justice Anne Richardson—wrote:
“We reverse the order granting a new trial on damages. The trial court abused its discretion by capping the amount of damages a jury can award for so-called ‘garden-variety emotional distress.’ The court also abused its discretion by erroneously rejecting as inadmissible Glick’s own testimony about his future economic damages. Because the jury’s damages awards were not excessive as a matter of law or unsupported by the evidence, we reinstate the judgment and affirm it.”
The jury awarded Glick $5 million in past noneconomic damages, $3 million in future noneconomic damages, and $621,358 in future economic damages. Linfield granted a new trial unless Glick would agree not only to a substantial trimming of noneconomic damages, but also to no future economic damages, in light of the judge discounting the officer’s testimony.
The jury found the city liable to Garcia for $3 million in past noneconomic damages and $1.5 million in future noneconomic damages, but with no future economic damages.
97% Reduction
Represented on appeal by by Matthew S. McNicholas, Douglas D. Winter, and Jason L. Oliver of the Westwood firm of McNicholas & McNicholas, and by Stuart B. Esner and Rowena J. Dizon Esner of the Pasadena firm of Chang, Boyer & Murphy, the officers argued on appeal:
“The trial court rendered much of the jury’s work a nullity by granting a new trial on the issue of damages. The court concluded that the jury’s noneconomic damages needed to be reduced by a startling 97% largely based on its erroneous conclusion that, because Plaintiffs stipulated that their noneconomic damages were ‘garden variety’ and therefore did not require expert testimony pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320 subdivision (c), then that necessarily meant that a noneconomic damages award can only ‘rarely exceed a low five- figure range.’
“In so ruling, the court erred as a matter of law. Plaintiffs’ agreement that their emotional distress damages were ‘garden variety’ only meant that expert testimony was not required for a jury to understand the nature of Plaintiffs’ harm which was caused by the City’s wrongful conduct. But just because Plaintiffs here agreed that they did not suffer from a psychological condition that was beyond the ordinary understanding of jurors (and therefore required no expert to explain), does not mean that Plaintiffs’ damages were capped at a particular amount.”
The brief adds that Linfield “failed to consider Glick’s evidence that the City’s retaliatory conduct, which had deprived him of opportunities to promote, will cause him to leave the Department early because he is now in a dead-end job,” elaborating:
“The reason Glick does not leave now is because he cannot afford to do so before he is 50 years old as that is when he is eligible for a pension, which he needs to support his family.”
City’s View
Deputy Los Angeles Citry Attorney Sara Uzaz argued in the respondent’s brief that “the total award was a staggering $ 13,121,358,” that “[u]nsurprisingly, the trial court found that the damages awards were clearly excessive,” and that “that Glick’s testimony—that he now planned to retire in 2030, rather than 2035—was entirely speculative and could not support his future lost earnings claim.”
The city also contended in its cross-appeal that the damages, even as pared by Linfield, were higher than warranted. Ugaz wrote:
“[I]f the trial court erred in granting the motion for new trial, then this Court should nevertheless conclude that the jury’s awards of noneconomic damages were so excessive that they shock the conscience and must be reduced to amounts supported by the evidence.”
Goorvitch’s Opinion
Goorvitch noted that Linfield “found insufficient evidence to support the jury’s noneconomic damages awards, labeling the evidence presented by plaintiffs as ‘scant’ but said that such a characterization is “belied by the court’s own summary of the evidence” which recounts testimony by both officers as to the extreme stress that the proceedings caused over a period of more tha a year.
He wrote:
“The trial court did not conclude that any of this testimony was inherently improbable or otherwise lacked credibility. Rather, the court deemed it insufficient because it showed ‘garden-variety emotional harms’ and was uncorroborated by testimony from “any psychologists, psychiatrists, or treating physicians.’ ”
The justice declared that expert testimony was not needed where “as here” jurors could, without ot, size up what harm was caused.
Linfield had commented that in his experience, “only the most extraordinary claims for garden variety emotional distress can reach a very low six-figure range.” Goorvitch said that view “effectively caps damages and means that no plaintiff could receive a mid-to-high six-figure amount or any seven-figure amount or higher for ‘garden-variety emotional distress,’ ” which, he wrote, is contrary to case law to the effect that no fixed standard exists.
Glick’s Testimony
Addressing Glick’s testimony, Goorvitch said:
“The trial court confused the admissibility of evidence with its credibility….That Glick could change his mind about when to retire and possibly receive ‘a windfall’ or ‘double recovery’ did not render his testimony inadmissible.
“The jury clearly believed Glick’s (admissible) testimony. Without resorting to speculation, the jury could find that Glick was reasonably certain to retire at age 50, and award him $621,358 based on the expert testimony of a forensic economist, who opined that Glick’s future loss of earnings would be $621,358 if he retired at 50 instead of 55.”
As to the cross-appeal, the jurist wrote:
“We are unconvinced that the noneconomic damages awarded here shock the conscience and require reduction.”
The case is Glick v. City of Los Angeles, 2026 S.O.S. 2263.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company