Appeals court tosses $10M verdict over judge's racist, sexist comments

A California appeals court has thrown out a $10 million jury verdict in a sexual harassment case against the Los Angeles Community College District, ruling that the trial judge's "bizarre" racial and sexist comments -- along with improper evidentiary rulings -- denied the defendants a fair trial and tainted the proceedings beyond repair.

A new trial was ordered.

"It seems clear the judge's rulings were motivated by personal opinions untethered to the rules of evidence," the panel's opinion read. "Whatever his motivations may have been, the judge admitted inflammatory evidence without consideration of the evidentiary rules, with undeniable prejudicial effect, thus preventing a fair trial."

Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes wrote the decision, with Presiding Justice Maria E. Stratton and Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. concurring.

The college district is represented by Meyers Nave attorneys Janice P. Brown and Nadia P. Bermudez in San Diego as well as Margaret W. Rosequist. They were unavailable to comment before press time on Monday.

Tracy L. Fehr of Alexander Morrison + Fehr LLP in Los Angeles and Maryann P. Gallagher of the Law Offices of Maryann P. Gallagher in Los Angeles represent plaintiff Sabrena Odom.

Odom, a tenured professor and administrator at Los Angeles Southwest Community College, sued the college district in 2018 on claims related to sexual harassment and retaliation involving Howard Irvin, a vice president of the college. Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District, BC724401 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 4, 2018).

"Irvin continuously made unwanted and unwelcome sexual advances towards Ms. Odom, including propositioning her to have sexual relations, the complaint read. "He threatened her when she refused. Ms. Odom told him to stop and when he continued with the unwanted sexual advances, she complained to the chancellor. Nothing was done."

After a jury found in favor of Odom, the defendants filed motions for a new trial or partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict. During hearings on those motions, however, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert S. Draper made inappropriate remarks related to race, despite the case having nothing to do with racial issues, the appellate decision read.

"For example," the filing read, "Judge Draper stated that plaintiff and Dr. Irvin came from the same neighborhood: 'And I use the term that my wife says is not politically acceptable. I think they are politically acceptable, because I use terms like coal black and light brown because I don't think those are bad terms.'"

Draper made irrelevant reference to the civil rights movement, the first Black football player to start and win the Super Bowl and the race of defense attorney Brown, who is Black.

He also made sexually inappropriate remarks, allegedly repeating in chambers a line told to female law secretaries when he was young: "You better be able to fuck better than you can type."

These comments prompted a motion to disqualify from the defense. Draper was disqualified by Orange County Superior Court Judge Cheri Pham in 2023.

In their opinion, the appellate court also looked askance at 20-year-old newspaper articles admitted into evidence erroneously reporting previous sex abuse convictions for Irvin, as well as testimony by Raquel Gonzalez, a former student who had filed a complaint against Irvin and a different administrator.

"On a final note," the opinion read, "while we do not know whether, as defendants contend, Judge Draper's 'persistent racial and gender bias' motivated his rulings at trial, we cannot rule out the possibility in light of the extreme and bizarre comments he made at the posttrial motions hearing and his ensuing disqualification for cause.

"We need not decide whether bias was the reason for his arbitrary and capricious evidentiary rulings; the rulings were an abuse of discretion irrespective of his motivations," the opinion concluded. "One thing we can say for sure is, the rulings were not motivated by a devotion to the law of evidence."