Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_03-cv-03174/USCOURTS-cand-1_03-cv-03174-78/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

EUREKA DIVISION

MARTHA BERNDT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 03-cv-03174-NJV

VERDICT FORM

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the following:

Plaintiff Berndt's Title VII Hostile Work Environment Claim against Defendant CDCR

Question No. 1

Did Plaintiff Martha Berndt prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was 

subjected to a sexually hostile work environment because of inmate sexual misconduct?

Yes ___ No ___

If you answered “yes,” go to Question No. 2. If you answered “no,” skip Questions 2 through 4, 

and go to Question No. 5.

Question No. 2

Did Plaintiff Martha Berndt prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) knew or should have known 

of the hostile work environment? 

Yes ___ No ___

If you answered “yes,” go to Question No. 3. If you answered “no,” skip Questions 3 through 4, 

and go to Question No. 5.

Case 1:03-cv-03174-NJV Document 886 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Question No. 3

Did Plaintiff Martha Berndt prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant 

CDCR failed to take prompt, effective remedial action in response to the hostile work 

environment?

Yes ___ No ___

If you answered “yes,” go to Question No. 4. If you answered “no,” skip Question No. 4 and go to 

Question No. 5. 

Question No. 4

Did Plaintiff Martha Berndt prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she suffered 

actual injury, damage or harm caused by the acts or omissions of Defendant CDCR?

Yes ___ No ___

Plaintiff Berndt's Equal Protection Claim against Defendant Skerik

Question No. 5

Did Plaintiff Martha Berndt prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant 

David Skerik personally participated in discriminating against her based on her gender, or set in 

motion a series of acts by others which he knew or reasonably should have known would cause 

others to discriminate against her based on her gender?

Yes ___ No ___

If you answered “yes,” go to Question No. 6. If you answered “no,” skip Questions Nos. 6 and 7, 

and go to Question No. 8.

Question No. 6

Did Plaintiff Martha Berndt prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant 

David Skerik intentionally discriminated against her based on her gender?

Yes ___ No ___

If you answered “yes,” go to Question No. 7. If you answered “no,” skip Question No. 7, 

and go to Question No. 8. 

Case 1:03-cv-03174-NJV Document 886 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Question No. 7

Did Plaintiff Martha Berndt prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is entitled 

to monetary damages as a result of the acts of Defendant David Skerik?

Yes ___ No ___

Question No. 8

State the total amount of compensatory damages, if any, that you find Plaintiff Martha 

Berndt is entitled to recover against the Defendant or Defendants you found liable. If you did not 

find Defendant CDCR or Defendant Skerik liable in question No. 4 or No. 7, please sign and date 

the verdict form and return it to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk. 

Economic loss $ ______________

Non-economic loss $ ______________

(including, but not limited to, physical, mental, or 

emotional pain and suffering)

Question No. 9

Did Plaintiff Martha Berndt prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant 

David Skerik acted with malice, oppression, or reckless disregard of her constitutional rights?

Yes ___ No ___

Please sign and date the form, and return the form to the Clerk.

Dated: 

__________________________________

JURY FOREPERSON

Case 1:03-cv-03174-NJV Document 886 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 3