This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In July 1994, P began working as a correctional officer. P had been working at the state prison in Chino for 20 years. P stutters when he speaks. In 2006, P began working as a mental health escort officer within the administrative segregation unit (Ad Seg) of the prison. The Ad Seg unit is an area where inmates with disciplinary issues or mental health needs are housed. The Ad Seg unit consists of two to three “halls,” or housing facilities. P's primary duties were to transport inmates to and from their mental health appointments. Sergeant Grove and P worked in two different halls within the Ad Seg unit. Grove began mocking or mimicking P's stutter. P did not document what occurred. Grove always mimicked P's stutter when other employees were present. P felt that Grove's conduct “was demeaning. It was embarrassing, … definitely harmful.” P described the conduct as “really hurtful.” A psychologist testified at trial that P had experienced psychological disorders as a result of the mimicking. When asked to estimate how many times Grove had mocked or mimicked his stutter, P said, “More than 5, less than 15.” Grove mimicked P's stutter over the prison's radio system. The transmission could be heard by about 50 employees. Officer Robert Konrad saw that P's “facial expression was in shock, saddened' at the incident. Dr. Jordan described P's disability as a: “Speech impairment, stuttering, specifically, stammering.” Dr. Jordan testified that he personally heard prison employees mock or mimic P's stutter on many occasions. When asked to “estimate over the years” how many times he had witnessed this, he replied, “I'm sure a dozen times that I've paid attention to.” He agreed that there was “a culture of joking” at the prison about P's stutter. Dr. Jordan said that P's reactions varied; at times P laughed, at times P reacted by “firing back,” and at times P appeared embarrassed by the conduct. On September 2, 2008, Grove, P, and Dr. Jordan were all present in a main corridor of the prison during a busy shift change. There were about 24 correctional officers in the general area. P said something to Grove and he responded by saying, “‘F-f-f-f**k you.’” P threatened to file a formal complaint. Grove then responded by saying, “I don't give a F-f-f. Make sure you get my name right.” P went to the prison's equal employment opportunity (EEO) office and obtained a form to file a complaint. Grove went to his supervisor and self-reported the encounter. P filed an EEO complaint against Grove. Two days later, P learned that Grove was to be reassigned to the same Ad Seg hall where he had been working (although they had separate chains of command). P went to several superiors, including the warden, to express his concerns about Grove's upcoming reassignment. One of the superiors said that P was “almost to the point of tears when he spoke about” the shift change incident and that P “felt really degraded” by what Grove had said to him in front of his fellow correctional officers. The prison reassigned Grove to the same Ad Seg hall where P had been working. P learned from others that Grove was continuing to mock and mimic his stutter. P felt that Grove treated him differently than the other correctional officers. There was a training class for the prison's supervisors. Grove was again mimicking P's “speech impediment and basically saying he didn't give a f**k about him. Saying it with the speech, I don't give a f**k.” Another officer reported said that Grove mimicked Caldera's stutter “throughout the whole conversation.” P filed a complaint in the superior court alleging various causes of action against defendants including disability harassment, failure to prevent harassment, and retaliation. The trial court granted Ds' summary judgment motion, which this court reversed in an unpublished opinion. This court held that as to each cause of action, there were triable issues of material fact. The jury returned the following special verdicts: P was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct based on his disability; the harassment was severe; the harassment was pervasive; a reasonable person in P's position would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; a supervisor participated in, assisted, or encouraged the harassing [conduct; the harassing conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm; the CDCR had failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment; and the CDCR's failure to prevent the harassment was a substantial factor in causing P harm. The jury determined that P was entitled to $500,000 in noneconomic damages. D appealed. Ds argue there is insufficient evidence the harassing conduct was either severe or pervasive and that there is insufficient evidence that it failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.