Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00358/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00358-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

RONALD EL-MALIK CURTIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-00358-SI 

COURT'S PROPOSED JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS

The Court has reviewed the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 27), the prior decision of the 

Ninth Circuit in this case,1the proposed joint jury instructions (Dkt. No. 198), the joint statement 

regarding jury instructions (Dkt. No. 256), the plaintiff’s proposed cat’s paw liability instruction 

(Dkt. No. 260), the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) Fall 2015 

Edition, and the Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions.2 Attached are the Court’s 

proposed jury instructions. The Court’s proposed verdict forms will be filed simultaneously with 

this order.

After reviewing the Court’s proposed jury instructions and verdict forms, the parties shall 

submit their objections by 6 p.m. on December 5, 2015. In addition to electronically filing their 

objections, the parties must email copies of the objections to directly the Court.

The objections must reference a particular proposed jury instruction number and/or 

proposed verdict form. The parties should also list the source upon which they base their 

objection.

 

1 Curtis v. City of Oakland, 571 Fed. App’x 616 (2014).

2

The updated version of the Ninth Circuit Manual of Civil Jury Instructions is available at 

http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 59
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

The parties are encouraged to stipulate on any mutually-agreed upon elements of the 

claims. Stipulations should be listed following the objections, again referencing the particular 

proposed jury instruction number. 

The Court is concerned with the complexity of the instructions, given the related but not 

entirely congruent scope of the various state and federal claims. The parties may stipulate to a 

reduced the number of claims to minimize the overall complexity of the jury instructions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 59
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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introductory Instructions

Jury Instruction No. 1 — Duty of Jury

Jury Instruction No. 2 — Claims and Defenses

Jury Instruction No. 3 — Burden of Proof: Preponderance of the Evidence

Jury Instruction No. 4 — Two or More Parties: Different Legal Rights

Jury Instruction No. 5 — What is Evidence

Jury Instruction No. 6 — What is Not Evidence

Jury Instruction No. 7 — Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Jury Instruction No. 8 — Ruling on Objections

Jury Instruction No. 9 — Credibility of Witnesses

Jury Instruction No. 10 — Conduct of the Jury

Jury Instruction No. 11 — No Transcript Available to Jury

Jury Instruction No. 12 — Taking Notes

Substantive Liability Instructions

Jury Instruction No. 13 — Additional Instructions of Law

Jury Instruction No. 14 — Hostile Work Environment Claim against Defendant City of Oakland: 

Employer Liability for Co-Worker Harassment under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Jury Instruction No. 15 — Hostile Work Environment Claim against Defendant City of Oakland: 

Employer Liability for Supervisor Harassment under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Jury Instruction No. 16 — “Tangible Employment Action” under Federal Law Defined (§ 1981)

Jury Instruction No. 17 — Hostile Work Environment Claim against Defendant City of Oakland 

under State Law (FEHA)

Jury Instruction No. 18 — “Harassing Conduct” under State Law Explained (FEHA)

Jury Instruction No. 19 — “Severe or Pervasive” under State Law Explained (FEHA)

Jury Instruction No. 20 — “Supervisor” under State Law Defined (FEHA)

Jury Instruction No. 21 — Hostile Work Environment Claim against Defendant Jennifer Ray in 

Her Individual Capacity under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 59
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

Jury Instruction No. 22 — Hostile Work Environment Claim against Defendant Joseph Torres in 

His Individual Capacity under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Jury Instruction No. 23 — Hostile Work Environment Claim against Defendant John Farrell in 

His Individual Capacity under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Jury Instruction No. 24 — Claim against Defendant Jennifer Ray in Her Individual Capacity 

under Federal Civil Rights Law (§ 1983)

Jury Instruction No. 25 — Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Explained (§ 

1983)

Jury Instruction No. 26 — Claim against Defendant Jennifer Ray in Her Supervisory Capacity 

under Federal Civil Rights Law (§ 1983)

Jury Instruction No. 27 — Claim against Defendant Joseph Torres in His Individual Capacity 

under Federal Civil Rights Law (§ 1983)

Jury Instruction No. 28 — Claim against Defendant John Farrell in His Individual Capacity 

under Federal Civil Rights Law (§ 1983)

Jury Instruction No. 29 — Retaliation Claim against Defendant City of Oakland under Federal 

Law (§ 1981, Title VII)

Jury Instruction No. 30 — Retaliation Claim against Defendant City of Oakland under Federal 

Law, Cat’s Paw Theory (§ 1981, Title VII)

Jury Instruction No. 31 — “Adverse Employment Action” under Federal Law Defined (§ 1981, 

Title VII)

Jury Instruction No. 32 — Retaliation Claim against Defendant City of Oakland under State 

Law (FEHA)

Jury Instruction No. 33 — Retaliation Claim against Defendant City of Oakland under State 

Law, Cat’s Paw Theory (FEHA)

Jury Instruction No. 34 — “Adverse Employment Action” under State Law Defined (FEHA)

Jury Instruction No. 35 — “Substantial Motivating Reason” under State Law Defined (FEHA)

Jury Instruction No. 36 — Retaliation Claim against Defendant Jennifer Ray in Her Individual 

Capacity under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 59
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

Jury Instruction No. 37 — Retaliation Claim against Defendant Joseph Torres in His Individual 

Capacity under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Jury Instruction No. 38 — Retaliation Claim against Defendant John Farrell in His Individual 

Capacity under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Jury Instruction No. 39 — Retaliation Claim against Defendant Gerald Simon in His Individual 

Capacity under Federal Law (§ 1981)

Damages Instructions

Jury Instruction No. 40 — Damages Instruction 

Jury Instruction No. 41 — Nominal Damages Explained

Jury Instruction No. 42 — Defining Conduct that is “Malicious, Oppressive, or in Reckless 

Disregard of Plaintiff’s Rights”

Concluding Instructions

Jury Instruction No. 43 — Duty to Deliberate 

Jury Instruction No. 44 — Consideration of Evidence: Conduct of the Jury

Jury Instruction No. 45 — Communication with the Court 

Jury Instruction No. 46 — Return of the Verdict 

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 59
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

INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 6 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 — DUTY OF THE JURY (1.1C)

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 as to the law of the 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.

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating 

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

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.

In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and 

ignore others; they are all important.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 7 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 — CLAIMS AND DEFENSES (1.2)

The plaintiff, Ronald Curtis, a firefighter with the City of Oakland, claims that he was 

subject to a racially hostile work environment; specifically, that he was harassed in a severe or 

pervasive manner in the form of verbal of physical conduct because of his race. Mr. Curtis asserts 

this claim pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against the City 

of Oakland. He also alleges this claim pursuant to 42 United States Code § 1981 against the City 

of Oakland, Jennifer Ray, Joseph Torres, and John Farrell.

Mr. Curtis also alleges that the City of Oakland, Jennifer Ray, Joseph Torres, John Farrell,

and Gerald Simon took retaliatory action against him because he filed claims alleging a racially 

hostile work environment. Mr. Curtis alleges that the City of Oakland retaliated against him 

contrary to FEHA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and 42 United States Code § 1981. Mr. 

Curtis alleges that Jennifer Ray, Joseph Torres, John Farrell, and Gerald Simon retaliated against 

him contrary to 42 United States Code § 1981.

Mr. Curtis also alleges a violation of 42 United States Code § 1983 against Jennifer Ray, 

Joseph Torres, and John Farrell. Section 1983 provides relief for a person alleging a deprivation 

of his rights, privileges, and immunities under the United States Constitution and federal law. Mr. 

Curtis bases his Section 1983 claim on the alleged deprivation of his rights under the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and 42 United States Code § 1981.

The plaintiff has the burden of proving these claims.

Defendants City of Oakland, Jennifer Ray, Joseph Torres, John Farrell, and Gerald Simon

deny all of these claims.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 8 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 — BURDEN OF PROOF: PREPONDERANCE OF THE 

EVIDENCE (1.3)

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it 

means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true.

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

it.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 9 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4 — TWO OR MORE PARTIES: DIFFERENT LEGAL 

RIGHTS (1.5)

You should decide the case as to each defendant separately. Unless otherwise stated, the 

instructions apply to all parties.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 10 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5 — WHAT IS EVIDENCE (1.6)

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

1. the sworn testimony of any witness;

2. the exhibits which are received into evidence; and

3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 11 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 — WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE (1.7)

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 have said in their opening statements, will say in their 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 has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to 

disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition sometimes testimony 

and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I have given a limiting 

instruction, you must follow it.

(4) Anything you may have seen or heard 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 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 12 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7 — DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (1.9)

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 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 13 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 — RULING ON OBJECTIONS (1.10)

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 overrule the objection, the 

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

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

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

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

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

evidence that I told you to disregard.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 14 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 — CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES (1.11)

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. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about 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 and any bias or prejudice;

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;

(6) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and

(7) any other factors that bear on believability.

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

witnesses who testify about it.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 15 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 — CONDUCT OF THE JURY (1.12)

I will now say a few words about your conduct as jurors.

First, keep an open mind throughout the trial, and do not decide what the verdict should be 

until you and your fellow jurors have completed your deliberations at the end of the case. 

Second, because you must decide this case based only on the evidence received in the case 

and on my instructions as to the law that applies, you must not be exposed to any other 

information about the case or to the issues it involves during the course of your jury duty. Thus, 

until the end of the case or unless I tell you otherwise:

 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, text messaging, or any Internet chat room, blog, Web site or other feature. This 

applies to communicating with your fellow jurors until I give you the case for 

deliberation, and it applies to communicating with everyone else including your family 

members, your employer, the media or press, and the people involved in the trial, 

although you may notify your family and your employer that you have been seated as a 

juror in the case. But, 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. 

 Because you will receive all the evidence and legal instruction you properly may 

consider to return a verdict: do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media 

accounts or commentary about the case or anything to do with it; 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. 

The law requires these restrictions to ensure the parties have a fair trial based on the same 

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 16 of 59
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

evidence that each party has had an opportunity to address. 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 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 17 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11 — NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE TO JURY (1.13)

During deliberations, you will have to make your decision based on what you recall of the 

evidence. You will not have a transcript of the trial. I urge you to pay close attention to the 

testimony as it is given.

If at any time you cannot hear or see the testimony, evidence, questions or arguments, let 

me know so that I can correct the problem.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 18 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 — TAKING NOTES (1.14)

If you wish, you may take notes to help you remember the evidence. If you do take notes, 

please keep them to yourself until you and your fellow jurors go to the jury room to decide the 

case. Do not let note-taking distract you. When you leave, your notes should be left in the jury 

room. No one will read your notes. They will be destroyed at the conclusion of the case.

Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your own memory of the evidence. 

Notes are only to assist your memory. You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those 

of your fellow jurors.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 19 of 59
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

SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 20 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 13 — ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS OF LAW (3.4)

At this point I will give you instructions about the various laws which apply to this case. 

In giving these instructions, I do not mean to emphasize any one instruction over any other 

instruction.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 21 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 — HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND: EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR CO-WORKER 

HARRASSMENT UNDER FEDERAL LAW (§ 1981) (10.2A, 10.2C)

Ronald Curtis seeks damages from the City of Oakland for a hostile work environment 

caused by racial harassment. Mr. Curtis has the burden of proving the following elements by a 

preponderance of the evidence:

1. Mr. Curtis was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by a nonimmediate supervisor and/or co-worker,

3 which includes the following five elements:

a) Mr. Curtis was subjected to slurs, insults, jokes or other verbal 

comments or physical contact or intimidation of a racial nature; 

b) the conduct was unwelcome;

c) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions 

of Mr. Curtis’s employment and create a racially abusive or hostile 

work environment;

d) Mr. Curtis perceived the working environment to be abusive or hostile; 

and

e) a reasonable man in Mr. Curtis’s circumstances would consider the 

working environment to be abusive or hostile; and

2. the City of Oakland or a member of the City of Oakland’s management 

knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective remedial action 

reasonably calculated to end the harassment.

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 

 

3 Mr. Curtis alleges that the following individuals were his non-immediate supervisors and/or coworkers for purposes of this § 1981 hostile work environment claim: Robert Lipp, Jason Lloyd, 

Mario Castillo, Justin Elliot, Frank Mui, Kurt Emke, Monte Gardea, James Ready, John Farrell, 

Roger Prieto, Michael Sullivan. Any of these alleged individuals may serve as the “nonimmediate supervisor and/or co-worker” as underlined above.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 22 of 59
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

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

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 Mr. Curtis’s employment, 

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

conditions of Mr. Curtis’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 City of Oakland’s remedial action must be reasonable and adequate. Whether the City 

of Oakland’s remedial action is reasonable and adequate depends upon 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 Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 23 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15 — HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND: EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR SUPERVISOR 

HARRASSMENT UNDER FEDERAL LAW (§ 1981) (10.2A, 10.2B)

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 actions4regarding the employee, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, 

reassigning, reassigning with significantly different responsibilities, or significantly changing 

benefits.

Mr. Curtis claims that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment by Joseph 

Torres and/or Jennifer Ray. Mr. Curtis further claims that Joseph Torres and/or Jennifer Ray 

was/were his supervisor(s) empowered by the City of Oakland to take tangible employment 

actions against him.

In order to establish a racially hostile work environment by a supervisor, Ronald Curtis 

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

1. Mr. Curtis was subjected to slurs, insults, jokes or other verbal comments or 

physical contact or intimidation of a racial nature by Joseph Torres and/or Jennifer Ray, his 

supervisor(s); 

2. the conduct was unwelcome;

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

Mr. Curtis’s employment and create a racially abusive or hostile work environment;

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

5. a reasonable man in Mr. Curtis’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 

 

4

The term “tangible employment action” is defined in Instruction No. 16.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 24 of 59
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

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.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 25 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 16 — “TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” UNDER 

FEDERAL LAW DEFINED (§1981) (10.4B)

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 firing, failing to promote, reassignment, a significant change 

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

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 26 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17 — HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND UNDER STATE LAW

(FEHA) (CACI 2521A)

Ronald Curtis claims that that he was subjected to harassment based on his race in his 

workplace at the City of Oakland, causing a hostile or abusive work environment in violation of 

state law. To establish this claim, Mr. Curtis must prove all of the following by a preponderance of 

the evidence: 

1. That Mr. Curtis was an employee of the City of Oakland;

2. That Mr. Curtis was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because he was

African-American;

3. That the harassing conduct5 was so severe or pervasive;

6

4. That a reasonable African-American person in Mr. Curtis’s circumstances would 

have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive;

5. That Mr. Curtis considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive;

6.

 That a supervisor7engaged in the conduct; 

OR

 That the City of Oakland or its supervisors or agents knew or should have known of 

the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action;

7. That Mr. Curtis was harmed; and

8. That the conduct was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Curtis’s harm.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

5

“Harassing conduct” is explained in Jury Instruction No. 18.

6

“Severe or pervasive” is explained in Jury Instruction No. 19.

7

“Supervisor” is defined in Jury Instruction No. 20.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 27 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 18 — “HARASSING CONDUCT” UNDER STATE LAW 

EXPLAINED (FEHA) (CACI 2523)

Harassing conduct may include any of the following:

a. Verbal harassment, such as obscene language, demeaning comments, derogatory 

statements, false accusations, slurs, or threats;

b. Physical harassment, such as unwanted touching, assault, or physical interference with 

normal work or movement; or

c. Visual harassment, such as offensive posters, objects, cartoons, or drawings.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 28 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 19 — “SEVERE OR PERVASIVE” UNDER STATE LAW 

EXPLAINED (FEHA) (CACI 2524)

“Severe or pervasive” means conduct that alters the conditions of employment and creates 

a hostile or abusive work environment.

In determining whether the conduct was severe or pervasive, you should consider all the 

circumstances. You may consider any or all of the following:

a. The nature of the conduct;

b. How often, and over what period of time, the conduct occurred;

c. The circumstances under which the conduct occurred;

d. Whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating;

e. The extent to which the conduct unreasonably interfered with an employee’s work 

performance.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 29 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 20 — “SUPERVISOR” UNDER STATE LAW DEFINED 

(FEHA) (CACI 2525)

A supervisor for the City of Oakland is an individual who has the discretion and authority:

a. To hire, transfer, promote, assign, reward, discipline, or discharge other employees or 

to effectively recommend any of these actions;

b. To act on the grievances of other employees or effectively to recommend action or 

grievances; or 

c. To direct Ronald Curtis’s daily work activities.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 30 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 21 — HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT JENNIFER RAY IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL 

LAW

(§ 1981) (10.2A)

Ronald Curtis seeks damages against the defendant Jennifer Ray for a racially hostile work 

environment while employed by the City of Oakland. In order to establish a racially hostile work 

environment, Mr. Curtis must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

1. Mr. Curtis was subjected to slurs, insults, jokes or other verbal comments or 

physical contact or intimidation of a racial nature by Jennifer Ray; 

2. the conduct was unwelcome;

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

Mr. Curtis’s employment and create a racially abusive or hostile work environment;

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

5. a reasonable man in Mr. Curtis’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.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 31 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 22 — HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT JOSEPH TORRES IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL 

LAW

(§ 1981) (10.2A)

Ronald Curtis seeks damages against the defendant Joseph Torres for a racially hostile 

work environment while employed by the City of Oakland. In order to establish a racially hostile 

work environment, Mr. Curtis must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of 

the evidence:

1. Mr. Curtis was subjected to slurs, insults, jokes or other verbal comments or 

physical contact or intimidation of a racial nature by Joseph Torres; 

2. the conduct was unwelcome;

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

Mr. Curtis’s employment and create a racially abusive or hostile work environment;

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

5. a reasonable man in Mr. Curtis’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.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 32 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 23 — HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT JOHN FARRELL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL 

LAW

(§ 1981) (10.2A) 

Ronald Curtis seeks damages against the defendant John Farrell for a racially hostile work 

environment while employed by the City of Oakland. In order to establish a racially hostile work 

environment, Mr. Curtis must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

1. Mr. Curtis was subjected to slurs, insults, jokes or other verbal comments or 

physical contact or intimidation of a racial nature by John Farrell; 

2. the conduct was unwelcome;

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

Mr. Curtis’s employment and create a racially abusive or hostile work environment;

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

5. a reasonable man in Mr. Curtis’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.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 33 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 24 — CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JENNIFER RAY IN 

HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (§ 1983)

(9.2, 10.2A) 

Ronald Curtis also brings a claim against defendant Jennifer Ray in her individual capacity 

under the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides that any person or persons who, under 

color of law, deprives another of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution 

or laws of the United States shall be liable to the injured party. In order to prevail on his § 1983 

claim against Jennifer Ray, Ronald Curtis must prove the following element by a preponderance 

of the evidence:

1. the act(s) of Jennifer Ray deprived Mr. Curtis of his particular rights under the laws 

of the United States, specifically under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and/or under the equal protection 

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as explained in 

other instructions.

 To prove that the act(s) of Jennifer Ray deprived him of his rights under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981, Mr. Curtis must also prove the elements found in Instruction No. 21 and/or 

Instruction No. 36.

 To prove that the act(s) of Jennifer Ray deprived him of his rights under the equal 

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

Mr. Curtis must also prove that his rights have been violated as explained in 

Instruction No. 25.

If you find Mr. Curtis has proved this element, under either § 1981 or the equal protection 

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as explained in these instructions, your verdict should be for 

the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove this element, your verdict should 

be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 34 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 25 — EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EXPLAINED (§ 1983)

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that, “No state shall 

make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 

protection of the laws.”

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 35 of 59
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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 26 — CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JENNIFER RAY IN 

HER SUPERVISORY CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (§ 1983)

(9.3, 10.2A) 

Ronald Curtis also brings a claim against defendant Jennifer Ray in her supervisory 

capacity under the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to prevail on his § 1983 claim 

against the defendant Jennifer Ray in her supervisory capacity, Ronald Curtis must prove each of 

the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. the act(s) of Jennifer Ray’s subordinate, Joseph Torres, deprived Mr. Curtis of his 

particular rights under the laws of the United States, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and/or 

the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution as explained in other instructions.

 To prove that the act(s) of Joseph Torres deprived him of his rights under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981, Mr. Curtis must also prove the elements found in Instruction No. 22 and/or 

Instruction No. 37.

 To prove that the act(s) of Joseph Torres deprived him of his rights under the equal 

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

Mr. Curtis must also prove that his rights have been violated as explained in 

Instruction No. 25.

and

2. Jennifer Ray directed Joseph Torres in the act(s) that deprived Mr. Curtis of these 

rights.

or 

Jennifer Ray set in motion a series of acts by Joseph Torres that she knew or 

reasonably should have known would cause Joseph Torres to deprive Mr. Curtis of 

these rights.

or

(a) Jennifer Ray knew, or reasonably should have known, that Joseph Torres 

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 36 of 59
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

was engaging in these act(s) and that their conduct would deprive Mr. 

Curtis of these rights; and

(b) Jennifer Ray failed to act to prevent Joseph Torres from engaging in such 

conduct.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 37 of 59
38

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 27 — CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JOSEPH TORRES IN 

HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (§1983)

(9.2, 10.2A) 

Ronald Curtis also brings a claim against defendant Joseph Torres in his individual 

capacity under the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to prevail on his § 1983 claim 

against Joseph Torres, Ronald Curtis must prove each the following element by a preponderance 

of the evidence:

1. the act(s) of Joseph Torres deprived Mr. Curtis of his particular rights under the 

laws of the United States, specifically under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and/or under the equal 

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as 

explained in other instructions.

 To prove that the act(s) of Joseph Torres deprived him of his rights under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981, Mr. Curtis must also prove the elements found in Instruction No. 22 and/or 

Instruction No. 37.

 To prove that the act(s) of Joseph Torres deprived him of his rights under the equal 

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

Mr. Curtis must also prove that his rights have been violated as explained in

Instruction No. 25 on a previous page.

If you find Mr. Curtis has proved this element, under either § 1981 or the equal protection 

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as explained in these instructions, your verdict should be for 

the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove this element, your verdict should 

be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 38 of 59
39

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 28 — CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JOHN FARRELL IN 

HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (§ 1983)

(9.2, 10.2A) 

Ronald Curtis also brings a claim against defendant John Farrell under the federal statute, 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to prevail on his § 1983 claim against John Farrell, Ronald Curtis must 

prove the following element by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. the act(s) of John Farrell deprived Mr. Curtis of his particular rights under the laws 

of the United States, specifically under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and/or under the equal protection 

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as explained in 

other instructions.

 To prove that the act(s) of John Farrell deprived him of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 

1981, Mr. Curtis must also prove the elements found in Instruction No. 23 and/or 

Instruction No. 38.

 To prove that the act(s) of John Farrell deprived him of his rights under the equal 

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 

Mr. Curtis must also prove that his rights have been violated as explained in 

Instruction No. 25 on a prior page.

If you find Mr. Curtis has proved this element, under either § 1981 or the equal protection 

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as explained in these instructions, your verdict should be for 

the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove this element, your verdict should 

be for the defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 39 of 59
40

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 29 — RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY 

OF OAKLAND UNDER FEDERAL LAW (§ 1981, Title VII) (10.3)

Ronald Curtis seeks damages against the City of Oakland for retaliation under federal law. 

Mr. Curtis has the burden of proving each of the following elements by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

1. Mr. Curtis engaged in an activity protected under federal law; that is, filing EOPD8

complaints in 2008 and 2009, or filing the EEOC/DFEH 9complaint in 2009;

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

10 and

3. Mr. Curtis was subjected to the adverse employment action because of his filing 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint in 2009.

Mr. Curtis would be “subjected to an adverse employment action” because of his filing 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint in 2009, if the adverse 

employment action would not have occurred but for that participation.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

8

The City of Oakland Equal Opportunity Programs Division.

9

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/ the California Department of Fair 

Employment & Housing.

10 The term “adverse employment action” is defined in Instruction No. 31.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 40 of 59
41

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 30 — RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY 

OF OAKLAND UNDER FEDERAL LAW, CAT’S PAW THEORY (§ 1981, Title VII) 

(494 F.3d 1174, 1184)

In this case, the decision to take an adverse employment action11 against Ronald Curtis was 

made by Gerald Simon. Even if Gerald Simon did not hold any retaliatory intent or was unaware 

of Mr. Curtis’s conduct on which the claim of retaliation is based, the City of Oakland may still be 

liable for retaliation if Mr. Curtis proves both of the following:

(1) The allegedly adverse employment action12 was initiated by, and would not have 

happened but for, the alleged retaliatory intent of Jennifer Ray and/or Joseph Torres;

(2) The allegedly adverse employment action13 was not actually independent because 

Jennifer Ray and/or Joseph Torres influenced or was/were involved in the decision or the 

investigation leading thereto.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

11 The term “adverse employment action” is defined in Instruction No. 31.

12 Same.

13 Same.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 41 of 59
42

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 31 — “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” UNDER 

FEDERAL LAW DEFINED (§ 1981, Title VII) (10.4A.1)

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 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 42 of 59
43

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 32 — RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY 

OF OAKLAND UNDER STATE LAW

(CACI 2505)

Ronald Curtis claims that the City of Oakland retaliated against him for his filing EOPD 

complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 2009 in violation of 

state law. To establish this claim, Mr. Curtis must prove all of the following:

1. That Mr. Curtis filed EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filed an EEOC/DFEH 

complaint(s) in 2009;

2. That the City of Oakland subjected Mr. Curtis to an adverse employment action;

14

3. That Mr. Curtis’s filing EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the 

EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 2009 was a substantial motivating reason15 for the City of Oakland’s

decision to subject Mr. Curtis to an adverse employment action;

4. That Mr. Curtis was harmed; and

5. That the City of Oakland’s retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing Mr. 

Curtis’s harm.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

14 The term “adverse employment action” as to this cause of action is defined below in Instruction 

No. 34.

15 The term “substantial motivating reason” is defined below Jury Instruction No. 35.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 43 of 59
44

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 33 — RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY 

OF OAKLAND UNDER STATE LAW, CAT’S PAW THEORY

(CACI 2511)

If you find that the decision to take an adverse employment action16 against Ronald Curtis 

was made by Gerald Simon but that Gerald Simon did not hold any retaliatory intent or was 

unaware of Mr. Curtis’s conduct on which the claim of retaliation is based, the City of Oakland 

may still be liable for retaliation if Mr. Curtis proves both of the following:

1. That Mr. Curtis’s filing EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the 

EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 2009 was a substantial motivating reason17 for Jennifer 

Ray and/or Joseph Torres’s acts upon which Gerald Simon relied; and

2. That Jennifer Ray and/or Joseph Torres’s acts were a substantial motivating reason18

for Gerald Simon’s decision to take the adverse action against Mr. Curtis.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

16 The term “adverse employment action” as to this cause of action is defined below in Instruction 

No. 34.

17 The term “substantial motivating reason” is defined below in Instruction No. 35.

18 Same.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 44 of 59
45

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 34 — “ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION” UNDER 

STATE LAW DEFINED (FEHA) (CACI 2509)

To recover on his retaliation claim, Ronald Curtis must prove that he was subjected to an 

adverse employment action.

Adverse employment actions are not limited to ultimate actions such as termination or 

demotion. There is an adverse employment action if the City of Oakland has taken an action or 

engaged in a course or pattern of conduct that, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected 

the terms, conditions, or privileges of Mr. Curtis’s employment. An adverse employment action 

includes conduct that is reasonably likely to impair a reasonable employee’s job performance or 

prospects for advancement or promotion. However, minor or trivial actions or conduct that is not 

reasonably likely to do more than anger or upset an employee cannot constitute an adverse 

employment action.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 45 of 59
46

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 35 — “SUBSTANTIAL MOTIVATING REASON” UNDER 

STATE LAW DEFINED (FEHA) (CACI 2507)

A “substantial motivating reason” is a reason that actually contributed to Mr. Curtis 

experiencing the adverse employment action. It must be more than a remote or trivial reason. It 

does not have to be the only reason motivating the adverse employment action.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 46 of 59
47

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 36 — RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT 

JENNIFER RAY IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW (§ 1981) 

(10.3)

Ronald Curtis seeks damages against defendant Jennifer Ray in her individual capacity for 

retaliation. To establish this claim, Mr. Curtis has the burden of proving each of the following 

elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Mr. Curtis engaged in an activity protected under federal law, that is, filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 

2009;

2. Jennifer Ray subjected Mr. Curtis to an adverse employment action;

19 and

3. Mr. Curtis was subjected to the adverse employment action because of his filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or his filing of the EEOC/DFEH 

complaint(s) in 2009.

Mr. Curtis would be “subjected to an adverse employment action” because of filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 2009, if the 

adverse employment action would not have occurred but for that participation.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements for which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

19 The term “adverse employment action” is defined above in Jury Instruction No. 31.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 47 of 59
48

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 37 — RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT 

JOSEPH TORRES IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW (§ 1981) 

(10.3)

Ronald Curtis seeks damages against defendant Joseph Torres in his individual capacity, 

for retaliation. To establish this claim, Mr. Curtis has the burden of proving each of the following 

elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Mr. Curtis engaged in an activity protected under federal law, that is, filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 

2009;

2. Joseph Torres subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment action;

20 and

3. Mr. Curtis was subjected to the adverse employment action because of his filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or his filing of the EEOC/DFEH 

complaint(s) in 2009.

Mr. Curtis would be “subjected to an adverse employment action” because of his filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 2009 if the 

adverse employment action would not have occurred but for that participation.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements for which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

20 The term “adverse employment action” is defined above in Jury Instruction No. 31.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 48 of 59
49

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 38 — RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT 

JOHN FARRELL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW (§ 1981) 

(10.3)

Ronald Curtis seeks damages against defendant John Farrell in his individual capacity, for 

retaliation. To establish this claim, Mr. Curtis has the burden of proving each of the following 

elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Mr. Curtis engaged in an activity protected under federal law, that is, filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 

2009;

2. John Farrell subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment action;

21 and

3. Mr. Curtis was subjected to the adverse employment action because of his filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or his filing of the EEOC/DFEH 

complaint(s) in 2009.

Mr. Curtis would be “subjected to an adverse employment action” because of his filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or his filing of the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 2009 if 

the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for that participation.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements for which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

21 The term “adverse employment action” is defined above in Jury Instruction No. 31.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 49 of 59
50

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 39 — RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT 

GERALD SIMON IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW (§ 1981) 

(10.3)

Ronald Curtis seeks damages against defendant Gerald Simon in his individual capacity, 

for retaliation under federal law. To establish this claim, Mr. Curtis has the burden of proving 

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

1. Mr. Curtis engaged in an activity protected under federal law, that is, filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 

2009;

2. Gerald Simon subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment action;

22 and

3. Mr. Curtis was subjected to the adverse employment action because of his filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 

2009.

Mr. Curtis would be “subjected to an adverse employment action” because of his filing the 

EOPD complaints in 2008 and 2009, and/or filing the EEOC/DFEH complaint(s) in 2009 if the 

adverse employment action would not have occurred but for that participation.

If you find that Mr. Curtis has proved all of the elements on which he has the burden of 

proof, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Mr. Curtis has failed to prove 

any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant.

 

22 The term “adverse employment action” is defined above in Jury Instruction No. 31.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 50 of 59
51

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

INSTRUCTIONS ON DAMAGES

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 51 of 59
52

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 40 — DAMAGES INSTRUCTION 

(5.1, 5.2)

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 Ronald Curtis on his hostile work environment and/or retaliation claims, 

you must determine Mr. Curtis’s damages. Mr. Curtis 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 defendants. You should 

consider the following:

 The nature and extent of the injuries;

 The loss of enjoyment of life experienced and which with reasonable probability will 

be experienced in the future;

 The mental and emotional pain and suffering experienced and which with reasonable 

probability will be experienced 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 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 52 of 59
53

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 41 — NOMINAL DAMAGES EXPLAINED (5.6)

The law which applies to this case authorizes an award of nominal damages. If you find 

for Ronald Curtis but you find that Mr. Curtis has failed to prove damages as defined in these 

instructions, you may award nominal damages. Nominal damages may not exceed one dollar.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 53 of 59
54

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 42 — DEFINING CONDUCT THAT IS “MALICIOUS, 

OPPRESSIVE, OR IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS”

Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of 

injuring the plaintiff. Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights if, under the 

circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff’s safety or rights, or if the 

defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate the plaintiff’s rights under 

federal law. An act or omission is oppressive if the defendant injures or damages or otherwise 

violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary harshness or severity, such as by the misuse or 

abuse of authority or power or by the taking advantage of some weakness or disability or 

misfortune of the plaintiff.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 54 of 59
55

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

CONCLUDING INSTRUCTIONS

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 55 of 59
56

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 43 — DUTY TO DELIBERATE (3.1)

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as your 

presiding juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you here in court.

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement 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 the views of 

your fellow jurors.

Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. Do 

not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right.

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 change an honest belief 

about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 56 of 59
57

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 44 — CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

CONDUCT OF THE JURY (3.1A)

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, text 

messaging, or any Internet chat room, blog, website or other feature. 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; 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. 

The law requires these restrictions to ensure the parties have a fair trial based on the same 

evidence that each party has had an opportunity to address. 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 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 57 of 59
58

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 45 — COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT (3.2)

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

a note through the courtroom deputy, signed by your presiding juror or by one or more members 

of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a 

signed writing; I will communicate with any member of the jury on anything concerning the case 

only in writing, or here in open court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the parties 

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 

me—how the jury stands, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous 

verdict or have been discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 58 of 59
59

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

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 46 — RETURN OF VERDICT (3.3)

A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have reached unanimous agreement 

on a verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to you, sign and date it, 

and advise the court that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

Case 3:10-cv-00358-SI Document 261 Filed 12/04/15 Page 59 of 59