Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01341/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01341-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicole Summer Smith
Plaintiff
The State of California Department of Highway Patrol
Defendant

Document Text:

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

NICOLE SUMMER SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY PATROL,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-01341-JD 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The Court will give these final instructions to the jury on March 27, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 17
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, it is my duty to instruct you on 

the law.

A copy of these instructions will be available in 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. It is my duty to instruct you on the law. 

Case 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 17
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: 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 which are received into evidence; and

3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed.

Case 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 3 of 17
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 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 have said 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 

client 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 give 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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 4 of 17
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: 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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 5 of 17
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: 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 said, or part of it, or none of it. 

Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testified about it.

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

1. the opportunity and ability of witness to see or hear or know he 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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 6 of 17
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: STIPULATION OF FACT

The parties have agreed to the following facts. You should therefore treat these facts as having 

been proved. 

On December 16, 2010, as part of the California Highway Patrol (the “CHP”) cadet application 

process, Plaintiff Nicole Smith took a background screening test called the Critical Voice Stress 

Analysis (“CVSA”) at the CHP Northern Division office in Redding, California. One purpose of 

this test is to screen out applicants who have been involved in sex crimes. There is no allegation in 

this case that Ms. Smith engaged in any sex crimes. During the CVSA process, Ms. Smith alleges 

the screening officer asked her three intrusive questions about her past sexual activities. She also 

alleges the screening officer made an inappropriate joke during the test.

Ms. Smith discussed the intrusive questions with her husband, who is also a CHP officer, as well 

as with another family friend, also a CHP officer. The family friend told his Captain in late May 

2011, about Ms. Smith’s account of the questions asked during the CVSA. The CHP then 

conducted an inquiry into the matter, starting in early June 2011. 

During the CHP’s inquiry into this matter, the officer who administered the CVSA exam admitted 

to asking one of the questions Smith attributed to him. He also admitted telling the joke. The CHP 

served a formal Memorandum of Direction on the officer on July 22, 2011.

The parties have agreed to this statement regarding the CVSA examination incident, in order to 

place into context the subject matter of this case, which concerns alleged retaliation. Ms. Smith is 

not making any claim for damages from the CVSA, and you will not be allowed to award any 

damages for the CVSA.

 

Case 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 7 of 17
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: BURDEN OF PROOF - PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 8 of 17
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: RETALIATION - TITLE VII

I will now instruct you on the law that applies in this case.

The issue in this case is not whether Ms. Smith was treated fairly or whether the CHP properly 

investigated her allegations of sexual harassment. Rather, the issue in the case concerns a specific 

retaliation claim under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and under the California state Fair 

Employment and Housing Act.

With respect to Title VII, Ms. Smith seeks damages against the CHP for retaliation. Ms. Smith

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

1. That Ms. Smith engaged in an activity protected under federal law, namely that she 

made a complaint about sexual harassment against Officer Call of the CHP;

2. That the CHP then subjected Ms. Smith to an adverse employment action, namely by 

offering her a citizen’s complaint form; and/or sending her a letter stating that she did 

not want to pursue a complaint; and/or sending her a letter about an I-9 form; and

3. That Ms. Smith was subjected to the adverse employment action because of her

complaint about sexual harassment.

Under Title VII, an action is an adverse employment action if a reasonable job applicant would 

have found the action materially adverse, which means it might have dissuaded a reasonable job 

applicant from making or supporting a charge of sexual harassment. 

A plaintiff is “subjected to an adverse employment action” because of her participation in making 

a sexual harassment complaint if the adverse employment action would not have occurred but for 

that participation. 

If you find that Ms. Smith has proved all three of these elements, your verdict should be in her 

favor. If, on the other hand, she has failed to prove any one of these elements, your verdict should 

be for the CHP.

Case 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 9 of 17
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: RETALIATION - FEHA

With respect to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Ms. Smith claims 

that the CHP retaliated against her for engaging in an activity protected by the FEHA. To 

establish this claim, Ms. Smith must prove all of the following:

1. That Ms. Smith engaged in an activity protected under California law, namely that 

she made a complaint about sexual harassment against Officer Call of the CHP; 

2. That the CHP then subjected Ms. Smith to an adverse employment action, namely 

by sending her a letter about an I-9 form. I have already ruled prior to trial that the 

only conduct by the CHP that may qualify as an adverse employment action under 

the FEHA is the I-9 letter. In deciding whether Smith was subjected to an adverse 

employment action under the FEHA, consider only the I-9 letter. Do not consider 

any other conduct by the CHP; 

3. That Ms. Smith’s making of a harassment complaint was a substantial motivating 

reason for the CHP’s decision to send the I-9 letter;

4. That Ms. Smith was harmed; and

5. That the CHP’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Smith’s harm. 

A “substantial motivating reason” is a reason that actually contributed to the adverse 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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 10 of 17
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: DAMAGES

I will now 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. Ms. Smith has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the 

evidence, and it is for you to decide what damages, if any, have been proven. 

If you find that the CHP retaliated against Ms. Smith in violation of Title VII or the FEHA, you 

must determine Ms. Smith’s damages. 

Damages means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate Ms. Smith for 

any injury you find was caused by the CHP. Under Title VII, if you find liability, you should 

decide any and all compensatory damages except for lost wages and job benefits both in the past 

and in the future. Damages on these losses are for the Court to decide if you find liability. In 

determining the measure of compensatory damages under Title VII, you should consider the 

mental and emotional pain and suffering experienced and which with reasonable probability will 

be experienced in the future. No evidence of monetary value of such things as pain and suffering 

has been, or need be, introduced into evidence. There is no exact standard for fixing the 

compensation to be awarded for these elements of damages. Any award you make should be fair 

in light of the evidence presented at trial. If you award damages for future mental and emotional 

pain and suffering, the amount should not be reduced to present cash value. 

Under the California FEHA, if you find liability, you should consider the reasonable value to Ms. 

Smith of past and future lost wages, earning capacity and employment opportunities. To recover 

damages for past lost earnings, Ms. Smith must prove the amount of wages and benefits she has 

lost to date. To recover damages for future lost earnings, Ms. Smith must prove the amount of 

wages and benefits she will be reasonably certain to lose in the future as a result of the injury. 

You may also consider whether to award damages for mental and emotional pain and suffering. 

Any award for future economic damages must be for the present cash value of those damages. 

Present cash value means the sum of money needed now, which when invested at a reasonable rate 

of return, will pay future damages at the times and in the amount that you find the damages would 

have been received. The rate of return to be applied in determining present cash value should be 

the interest that can reasonably be expected from safe investments that can be made by a person of 

ordinary prudence, who has ordinary financial experience and skill.

In determining the amount of damages, if any, to award, you should be guided by dispassionate 

common sense. You must use sound discretion in fixing an award of damages, drawing 

reasonable inferences from the facts in the evidence. You may not award damages based on 

sympathy, speculation or guesswork. On the other hand, the law does not require Ms. Smith to 

prove the amount of her losses with mathematical precision, but only with as much definiteness 

and accuracy as circumstances permit. 

Each item of damages may be awarded only once. If you find the CHP to be liable under both 

Title VII and FEHA, you may award compensatory damages for mental and emotional pain only 

once. 

Case 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 11 of 17
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: DAMAGES - MITIGATION 

Ms. Smith has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. To mitigate means to avoid or 

reduce damages.

CHP has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That Ms. Smith failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages; and

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

Case 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 12 of 17
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: USE OF ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY TO CONDUCT 

RESEARCH ON OR COMMUNICATE ABOUT A CASE

During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any information to anyone 

by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic device or media, such as the 

telephone, a cell phone, smart phone, iPhone, Blackberry or computer, the Internet, any Internet 

service, any text or instant messaging service, any Internet chat room, blog, or website such as 

Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube or Twitter, to communicate to anyone any information 

about this case or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict. In other 

words, you cannot talk to anyone on the phone, correspond with anyone, or electronically 

communicate with anyone about this case. You can only discuss the case in the jury room with 

your fellow jurors during deliberations. I expect you will inform me as soon as you become aware 

of another juror’s violation of these instructions.

You may not use these electronic means to investigate or communicate about the case because it is 

important that you decide this case based solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom. 

Information on the internet or available through social media might be wrong, incomplete, or 

inaccurate. You are only permitted to discuss the case with your fellow jurors during deliberations 

because they have seen and heard the same evidence you have. In our judicial system, it is 

important that you are not influenced by anything or anyone outside of this courtroom. Otherwise, 

your decision may be based on information known only by you and not your fellow jurors or the 

parties in the case. This would unfairly and adversely impact the judicial process.

Case 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 13 of 17
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: DUTY TO DELIBERATE

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

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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 14 of 17
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: 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, 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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 15 of 17
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: COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT

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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 16 of 17
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: RETURN OF VERDICT

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

verdict, your foreperson 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 3:13-cv-01341-JD Document 132 Filed 03/26/15 Page 17 of 17