Discrimination
Court Rejects Cap on “Garden-Variety” Emotional Distress Damages
In Glick v. City of Los Angeles, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed an order granting a new trial on damages, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by effectively capping the amount a jury may award for so-called “garden-variety” emotional distress and by rejecting a plaintiff’s own testimony about future economic loss as inadmissible. The court reinstated and affirmed the jury’s multimillion-dollar verdict.
Background
Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia, both Los Angeles Police Department officers, sued the City of Los Angeles under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. The claims arose from an Internal Affairs investigation and disciplinary process that the officers said treated them more harshly than their female partners.
A jury found for the plaintiffs on both causes of action, awarding Glick roughly $8.6 million and Garcia $4.5 million. The trial court entered judgment on those awards in September 2023.
The City then moved for a new trial, arguing the noneconomic damages were plainly excessive. The trial court conditionally granted the motion unless Glick agreed to reduce his total award to $250,000 and Garcia agreed to reduce his to $125,000. The plaintiffs rejected the reduced awards, and both sides appealed.
What the Court Held on Emotional Distress Damages
The trial court had characterized the plaintiffs’ evidence as “scant” and faulted them for presenting no testimony from psychologists, psychiatrists, or treating physicians. The Court of Appeal disagreed, noting that the trial court’s own summary recounted detailed testimony from both officers about the emotional toll of the investigation and discipline.
Expert testimony, the court explained, is not required where the emotional distress described is within the common experience of jurors. The court also rejected the idea that a discovery stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320, subdivision (c) limits the amount a plaintiff may recover for emotional distress.
Most significantly, the court held that the trial judge had effectively imposed a cap—reasoning that only the most extraordinary garden-variety claims could reach a very low six-figure range. That approach, the court said, was incompatible with settled law rejecting any fixed standard for measuring noneconomic damages. Reviewing the new-trial order for abuse of discretion, the court found the reduction extreme and arbitrary.
There is no fixed cap on “garden-variety” emotional distress damages, and expert testimony is not required where the distress is within the common experience of jurors. Imposing such a cap through a new-trial remittitur is an abuse of discretion.
What the Court Held on Future Economic Damages
The trial court had reduced Glick’s future economic damages from $621,358 to $0, deeming his testimony that he planned to retire early “completely speculative and thus inadmissible.” The Court of Appeal held that this confused the admissibility of evidence with its credibility.
Glick was competent to testify about his retirement plans and how the City’s actions changed them, and the possibility that he might later change his mind did not make the testimony inadmissible. That testimony, together with a forensic economist’s opinion, constituted substantial evidence supporting the award.
Turning to the City’s cross-appeal, the court declined to reduce the noneconomic awards or eliminate the economic damages itself. It found nothing in the record—no inflammatory evidence, misleading instructions, or improper argument—to suggest the jury acted on passion or prejudice. The order granting a new trial was reversed, and the judgment was reinstated and affirmed.
What This Means for You
This decision confirms that California law recognizes no fixed cap on “garden-variety” emotional distress damages and that lay testimony can support such awards without expert corroboration. It also clarifies that a plaintiff’s own testimony about changed retirement plans is admissible evidence of future economic loss, a question of credibility for the jury rather than admissibility. The ruling arises in FEHA discrimination and retaliation litigation.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.