Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01474/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01474-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRINA HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOODFELLOW TOP GRADE,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01474-HSG 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 1 of 37
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 1

DUTY OF JURY

Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence and the arguments of the 

attorneys, it is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case. 

Each of you has received a copy of these instructions that you may take with you to the jury 

room to consult during your deliberations.

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will 

apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with 

it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or 

sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You will 

recall that you took an oath to do so. 

Please do not read into these instructions or anything that I may say or do or have said or 

done that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 2 of 37
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 2

BURDEN OF PROOF—PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or affirmative defense by a preponderance 

of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or affirmative 

defense is more probably true than not true.

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 3 of 37
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 3

WHAT IS EVIDENCE

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of:

1. the sworn testimony of any witness;

2. the exhibits that are admitted into evidence;

3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed; and

4. any facts that I may instruct you to accept as proved.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 4 of 37
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 4

WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received into 

evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts 

are. I will list them for you:

1. Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not 

witnesses. What they may say in their opening statements, closing arguments and at 

other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If 

the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, 

your memory of them controls. 

2. Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their 

clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. 

You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on it. 

3. Testimony that is excluded or stricken, or that you are instructed to disregard, is not 

evidence and must not be considered. In addition some evidence may be received 

only for a limited purpose; when I instruct you to consider certain evidence only for 

a limited purpose, you must do so and you may not consider that evidence for any 

other purpose. 

4. Anything you may see or hear when the court was not in session is not evidence. You 

are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 5 of 37
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 5

EVIDENCE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE

Some evidence was admitted only for a limited purpose. When I instructed you that an item 

of evidence was admitted only for a limited purpose, you must consider it only for that limited 

purpose and not for any other purpose.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 6 of 37
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 6

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as 

testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial 

evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. You should consider 

both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct 

or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 7 of 37
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 7

RULING ON OBJECTIONS

There are rules of evidence that control what can be received into evidence. When a lawyer 

asks a question or offers an exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side thinks that it is not 

permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. If I overruled the objection, the question 

may be answered or the exhibit received. If I sustained the objection, the question cannot be 

answered, and the exhibit cannot be received. Whenever I sustained an objection to a question, you 

must ignore the question and must not guess what the answer might have been. 

Sometimes I ordered that evidence be stricken from the record and that you disregard or 

ignore that evidence. That means when you are deciding the case, you must not consider the stricken 

evidence for any purpose.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 8 of 37
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 8

BENCH CONFERENCES AND RECESSES

From time to time during the trial, it became necessary for me to talk with the attorneys out 

of the hearing of the jury, either by having a conference at the bench when the jury was present in 

the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please understand that while you were waiting, we were 

working. The purpose of these conferences is not to keep relevant information from you, but to 

decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence and to avoid confusion and 

error. 

Of course, we have done what we could to keep the number and length of these conferences 

to a minimum. Do not consider my granting or denying a request for a conference as any indication 

of my opinion of the case or of what your verdict should be. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 9 of 37
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 9

IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE—WITNESS

The evidence that a witness has lied under oath or given inconsistent testimony may be 

considered, along with all other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how 

much weight to give to the testimony of the witness and for no other purpose. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 10 of 37
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 10

USE OF INTERROGATORIES

Evidence was presented to you in the form of answers of one of the parties to written 

interrogatories submitted by the other side. These answers were given in writing and under oath 

before the trial in response to questions that were submitted under established court procedures. You 

should consider the answers, insofar as possible, in the same way as if they were made from the 

witness stand. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 11 of 37
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 11

CHARTS AND SUMMARIES NOT RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE

Certain charts and summaries not admitted into evidence may have been shown to you in 

order to help explain the contents of books, records, documents, or other evidence in the case. Charts 

and summaries are only as good as the underlying evidence that supports them. You should, 

therefore, give them only such weight as you think the underlying evidence deserves. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 12 of 37
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 12

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and 

which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of 

it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account: 

1. the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified 

to; 

2. the witness’s memory; 

3. the witness’s manner while testifying; 

4. the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, if any; 

5. the witness’s bias or prejudice, if any; 

6. whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony; 

7. the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and 

8. any other factors that bear on believability. 

Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she 

said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often 

forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event 

but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that testimony 

is untrue just because it differs from other testimony. 

However, if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something 

important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think 

the witness testified untruthfully about some things but told the truth about others, you may accept 

the part you think is true and ignore the rest. 

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of 

witnesses who testify. What is important is how believable the witnesses were, and how much 

weight you think their testimony deserves. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 13 of 37
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 13

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—DISPARATE TREATMENT—WHEN EVIDENCE 

SUPPORTS “SOLE REASON” OR “MOTIVATING FACTOR”

The plaintiff has brought a claim of employment discrimination against the defendant. The 

plaintiff claims that her race or sex was either the sole reason or a motivating factor for the 

defendant’s decision to take an adverse employment action against her. The defendant denies that 

the plaintiff’s race or sex was either the sole reason or a motivating factor for the defendant’s 

decision to take an adverse employment action against her and further claims the decision to take 

an adverse employment action against her was based on a lawful reason. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 14 of 37
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 14

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—“ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” IN DISPARATE 

TREATMENT CASES

An action is an adverse employment action if it materially affects the compensation, terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 15 of 37
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 15

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—DISPARATE TREATMENT—RACE—“SOLE 

REASON”—ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As to the plaintiff’s claim that her race was the sole reason for the defendant’s decision to 

take an adverse employment action against her, the plaintiff has the burden of proving both of the 

following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1. the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and

2. the plaintiff’s race was the sole reason in the defendant’s decision to take the adverse 

employment action against the plaintiff.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved both of these elements, your verdict should be for 

the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove either of these elements, your 

verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 16 of 37
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 16

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—DISPARATE TREATMENT—SEX—“SOLE 

REASON”—ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As to the plaintiff’s claim that her sex was the sole reason for the defendant’s decision to 

take an adverse employment action against her, the plaintiff has the burden of proving both of the 

following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1. the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and

2. the plaintiff’s sex was the sole reason in the defendant’s decision to take the adverse 

employment action against the plaintiff.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved both of these elements, your verdict should be for 

the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove either of these elements, your 

verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 17 of 37
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 17

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—DISPARATE TREATMENT—RACE—“MOTIVATING 

FACTOR”—ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As to the plaintiff’s claim that her race was a motivating factor for the defendant’s decision 

to take an adverse employment action against her, the plaintiff has the burden of proving both of the 

following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1. the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and

2. the plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in the defendant’s decision to take the adverse 

employment action against the plaintiff.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved both of these elements, your verdict should be for 

the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove either of these elements, your 

verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 18 of 37
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 18

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—DISPARATE TREATMENT—SEX—“MOTIVATING 

FACTOR”—ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As to the plaintiff’s claim that her sex was a motivating factor for the defendant’s decision 

to take an adverse employment action against her, the plaintiff has the burden of proving both of the 

following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

3. the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and

4. the plaintiff’s sex was a motivating factor in the defendant’s decision to take the adverse 

employment action against the plaintiff. 

If you find that the plaintiff has proved both of these elements, your verdict should be for 

the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove either of these elements, your 

verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 19 of 37
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 19

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT—RACE—

HARASSMENT BECAUSE OF PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS—ELEMENTS

The plaintiff seeks damages against the defendant for a racially hostile work environment 

while employed by the defendant. In order to establish a racially hostile work environment, the 

plaintiff must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1. the plaintiff was subjected to slurs, insults, jokes or other verbal comments or physical 

contact or intimidation of a racial nature;

2. the conduct was unwelcome;

3. the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s 

employment and create a racially abusive or hostile work environment;

4. the plaintiff perceived the working environment to be abusive or hostile; and

5. a reasonable woman in the plaintiff’s circumstances would consider the working 

environment to be abusive or hostile. 

Whether the environment constituted a racially hostile work environment is determined by 

looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the harassing conduct, the 

severity of the conduct, whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating or a mere 

offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with an employee’s work performance.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 20 of 37
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 20

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT—SEX—

HARASSMENT BECAUSE OF PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS—ELEMENTS

The plaintiff seeks damages against the defendant for a sexually hostile work environment 

while employed by the defendant. In order to establish a sexually hostile work environment, the 

plaintiff must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1. the plaintiff was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature;

2. the conduct was unwelcome;

3. the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s 

employment and create a sexually abusive or hostile work environment;

4. the plaintiff perceived the working environment to be abusive or hostile; and

5. a reasonable woman in the plaintiff’s circumstances would consider the working 

environment to be abusive or hostile. 

Whether the environment constituted a sexually hostile work environment is determined by 

looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the frequency of the harassing conduct, the 

severity of the conduct, whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating or a mere 

offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interfered with an employee’s work performance.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 21 of 37
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 21

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY 

SUPERVISOR—RACE—CLAIM BASED ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY—TANGIBLE 

EMPLOYMENT ACTION

An employer may be liable when an employee’s supervisor creates a racially hostile work 

environment for that employee. A “supervisor” is someone who is empowered by the employer to 

take tangible employment actions regarding the employee, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, 

reassigning with significantly different responsibilities, or significantly changing benefits. 

The plaintiff claims that she was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by Leonard 

Garcia, Timothy Sardam, and Sean Lennan, and that Leonard Garcia, Timothy Sardam, and Sean 

Lennan were her supervisors empowered by the defendant to take tangible employment actions 

against the plaintiff. 

The defendant denies the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff must prove her claim by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 22 of 37
23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 22

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY 

SUPERVISOR—SEX—CLAIM BASED ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY—TANGIBLE 

EMPLOYMENT ACTION

An employer may be liable when an employee’s supervisor creates a sexually hostile work 

environment for that employee. A “supervisor” is someone who is empowered by the employer to 

take tangible employment actions regarding the employee, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, 

reassigning with significantly different responsibilities, or significantly changing benefits. 

The plaintiff claims that she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment by 

Leonard Garcia, Timothy Sardam, and Sean Lennan, and that Leonard Garcia, Timothy Sardam, 

and Sean Lennan were her supervisors empowered by the defendant to take tangible employment 

actions against the plaintiff. 

The defendant denies the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff must prove her claim by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 23 of 37
24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

STIPULATED INSTRUCTION NO. 23

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—“TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” DEFINED 

Tangible employment actions are the means by which a supervisor brings the official power 

of the enterprise to bear on subordinates. A tangible employment action requires an official act of 

the enterprise, a company act. A tangible employment action consists of a significant change in 

employment status such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment, a significant change in 

responsibilities, undesirable reassignment, or a significant change in benefits.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 24 of 37
25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 24

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY 

NON-IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR OR BY CO-WORKER—RACE—CLAIM BASED ON 

NEGLIGENCE

The plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant for a hostile work environment caused by 

racial harassment. The plaintiff has the burden of proving both of the following elements by a 

preponderance of the evidence: 

1. the plaintiff was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by another 

subcontractor’s employee, non-immediate supervisor, or co-worker; and

2. the defendant or a member of the defendant’s management knew or should have known 

of the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective remedial action reasonably 

calculated to end the harassment. 

A person is a member of management if the person has substantial authority and discretion 

to make decisions concerning the terms of the harasser’s employment or the plaintiff’s employment, 

such as authority to counsel, investigate, suspend, or fire the accused harasser, or to change the 

conditions of the plaintiff’s employment. A person who lacks such authority is nevertheless part of 

management if he or she has an official or strong duty in fact to communicate to management 

complaints about work conditions. You should consider all the circumstances in this case in 

determining whether a person has such a duty.

The defendant’s remedial action must be reasonable and adequate. Whether the defendant’s 

remedial action is reasonable and adequate depends on the remedy’s effectiveness in stopping the 

individual harasser from continuing to engage in such conduct and in discouraging other potential 

harassers from engaging in similar unlawful conduct. An effective remedy should be proportionate 

to the seriousness of the offense.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved both of the elements on which the plaintiff has the 

burden of proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed 

to prove either of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 25 of 37
26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 25

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY 

NON-IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR OR BY CO-WORKER—SEX—CLAIM BASED ON 

NEGLIGENCE

The plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant for a hostile work environment caused by 

sexual harassment. The plaintiff has the burden of proving both of the following elements by a 

preponderance of the evidence: 

1. the plaintiff was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment by another 

subcontractor’s employee, non-immediate supervisor, or co-worker; and

2. the defendant or a member of the defendant’s management knew or should have known 

of the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective remedial action reasonably 

calculated to end the harassment. 

A person is a member of management if the person has substantial authority and discretion 

to make decisions concerning the terms of the harasser’s employment or the plaintiff’s employment, 

such as authority to counsel, investigate, suspend, or fire the accused harasser, or to change the 

conditions of the plaintiff’s employment. A person who lacks such authority is nevertheless part of 

management if he or she has an official or strong duty in fact to communicate to management 

complaints about work conditions. You should consider all the circumstances in this case in 

determining whether a person has such a duty.

The defendant’s remedial action must be reasonable and adequate. Whether the defendant’s 

remedial action is reasonable and adequate depends on the remedy’s effectiveness in stopping the 

individual harasser from continuing to engage in such conduct and in discouraging other potential 

harassers from engaging in similar unlawful conduct. An effective remedy should be proportionate 

to the seriousness of the offense.

If you find that the plaintiff has proved both of the elements on which the plaintiff has the 

burden of proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed 

to prove either of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 26 of 37
27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 26

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—RETALIATION—ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF 

PROOF

The plaintiff seeks damages against the defendant for retaliation. The plaintiff has the burden 

of proving each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1 the plaintiff participated in an activity protected under federal law, that is, reporting 

claimed discrimination or harassment;

2. the employer subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment action; and 

3. the plaintiff was subjected to the adverse employment action because of her 

opposition to an unlawful employment practice. 

A plaintiff is “subjected to an adverse employment action” because of her opposition to an 

unlawful employment practice if the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for 

that opposition. 

If you find that the plaintiff has proved all three of these elements, your verdict should be 

for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed to prove any of these elements, your 

verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 27 of 37
28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 27

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—“ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” IN 

RETALIATION CASES

An action is an adverse employment action if a reasonable employee would have found the 

action materially adverse, which means it might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making 

or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 28 of 37
29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 28

CIVIL RIGHTS—TITLE VII—“CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE” DEFINED

A constructive discharge occurs when the working conditions are so intolerable that a 

reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would feel compelled to resign.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 29 of 37
30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 29

DAMAGES—PROOF

It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. By instructing you 

on damages, the Court does not mean to suggest for which party your verdict should be rendered. 

If you find for the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s sexual or racial discrimination claim, you must 

determine the plaintiff’s damages. The plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Damages means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly 

compensate the plaintiff for any injury you find was caused by the defendant. You should consider 

the following: 

• The mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering experienced and that with 

reasonable probability will be experienced in the future;

• The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity, salaries, employment, 

and employment opportunities lost up to the present time; and

• The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity, salaries, employment, 

and employment opportunities that with reasonable probability will be lost in the 

future.

It is for you to determine what damages, if any, have been proved. 

Your award must be based upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork or 

conjecture. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 30 of 37
31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 30

MEASURES OF TYPES OF DAMAGES

In determining the measure of damages, you should consider: 

The nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff; 

The mental, physical, emotional pain and suffering experienced and that with reasonable 

probability will be experienced in the future; 

The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity, salaries, employment, or 

employment opportunities lost from the time of the discrimination to the present time; 

The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity, salaries, employment, and 

employment opportunities that with reasonable probability will be lost in the future. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 31 of 37
32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 31

DAMAGES—MITIGATION

The plaintiff has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. To mitigate means to 

avoid or reduce damages.

The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages; and

2. the amount by which damages would have been mitigated.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 32 of 37
33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 32

DUTY TO DELIBERATE

Before you begin your deliberations, elect one member of the jury as your presiding juror. 

The presiding juror will preside over the deliberations and serve as the spokesperson for the jury in 

court.

You shall diligently strive to reach agreement with all of the other jurors if you can do so. 

Your verdict must be unanimous. 

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you have 

considered all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to their views. 

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if each of 

you can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not be unwilling to change 

your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. But do not come to a decision simply 

because other jurors think it is right, or change an honest belief about the weight and effect of the 

evidence simply to reach a verdict. 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 33 of 37
34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 33

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE—CONDUCT OF THE JURY

Because you must base your verdict only on the evidence received in the case and on these 

instructions, I remind you that you must not be exposed to any other information about the case or 

to the issues it involves. Except for discussing the case with your fellow jurors during your 

deliberations: 

Do not communicate with anyone in any way and do not let anyone 

else communicate with you in any way about the merits of the case or 

anything to do with it. This includes discussing the case in person, in 

writing, by phone or electronic means, via email, via text messaging, 

or any internet chat room, blog, website or application, including but 

not limited to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, 

Snapchat, or any other forms of social media. This applies to 

communicating with your family members, your employer, the media 

or press, and the people involved in the trial. If you are asked or 

approached in any way about your jury service or anything about this 

case, you must respond that you have been ordered not to discuss the 

matter and to report the contact to the court. 

Do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media accounts or 

commentary about the case or anything to do with it[, although I have 

no information that there will be news reports about this case]; do not 

do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the 

Internet, or using other reference materials; and do not make any 

investigation or in any other way try to learn about the case on your 

own. Do not visit or view any place discussed in this case, and do not 

use Internet programs or other devices to search for or view any place 

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 34 of 37
35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

discussed during the trial. Also, do not do any research about this 

case, the law, or the people involved—including the parties, the 

witnesses or the lawyers—until you have been excused as jurors. If 

you happen to read or hear anything touching on this case in the 

media, turn away and report it to me as soon as possible. 

These rules protect each party’s right to have this case decided only on evidence that has 

been presented here in court. Witnesses here in court take an oath to tell the truth, and the accuracy 

of their testimony is tested through the trial process. If you do any research or investigation outside 

the courtroom, or gain any information through improper communications, then your verdict may 

be influenced by inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information that has not been tested by the 

trial process. Each of the parties is entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, and if you decide the 

case based on information not presented in court, you will have denied the parties a fair trial. 

Remember, you have taken an oath to follow the rules, and it is very important that you follow these 

rules. 

A juror who violates these restrictions jeopardizes the fairness of these proceedings, and a 

mistrial could result that would require the entire trial process to start over. If any juror is exposed 

to any outside information, please notify the court immediately.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 35 of 37
36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 34

COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a 

note through the clerk, signed by any one or more of you. No member of the jury should ever attempt 

to communicate with me except by a signed writing. I will not communicate with any member of 

the jury on anything concerning the case except in writing or here in open court. If you send out a 

question, I will consult with the lawyers before answering it, which may take some time. You may 

continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any question. Remember that you are 

not to tell anyone—including the court—how the jury stands, whether in terms of vote count or 

otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been discharged.

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 36 of 37
37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

INSTRUCTION NO. 35

RETURN OF VERDICT

A verdict form has been prepared for you. Please answer the questions in the order in which 

they appear. After you have reached unanimous agreement on a verdict, your presiding juror should 

complete the verdict form according to your deliberations, sign and date it, and advise the clerk that 

you are ready to return to the courtroom.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/13/19

____________________________ _________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01474-HSG Document 156 Filed 09/13/19 Page 37 of 37