The information on this website and blog does not constitute legal advice.
California Sexual Harassment Law and “#MeToo” Evidence
In California employment litigation, the “#MeToo” evidence doctrine allows a plaintiff to introduce evidence showing how other similarly situated employees were treated by the same employer. This evidence is not used to prove character or bad propensity. Instead, it may be admitted to establish intent, motive, bias, or pretext under the California Evidence Code.
When properly framed, “#MeToo” evidence can be critical in sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation cases brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Legal Foundation: Evidence Code Section 1101(b)
Under California Evidence Code section 1101, evidence of other acts is generally inadmissible to prove character or propensity. However, section 1101(b) allows such evidence when offered to prove something else—such as:
- Discriminatory intent
- Biased motive
- Pretext
- Witness impeachment
- Credibility challenges
California appellate courts have repeatedly clarified that “#MeToo” evidence may fall within this exception when tied directly to the plaintiff’s protected class and legal theory.
Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy (2009): Early Recognition
In Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy / Spastic Children’s Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 740, a plaintiff alleging pregnancy discrimination was permitted to present testimony from five former employees who claimed they were terminated after informing the employer of their pregnancies.
The Court of Appeal held that this testimony was admissible to show discriminatory intent and pretext—not propensity—under the Evidence Code.
Pantoja v. Anton (2011): Expansion of #MeToo Evidence
In Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, the Court of Appeal significantly expanded the scope of admissible “#MeToo” evidence.
The court held that harassment directed at other female employees—even when occurring outside the plaintiff’s presence and before or after her employment—could be admissible under Evidence Code section 1101(b) to demonstrate discriminatory motive.
Facts and Trial Court Exclusions in Pantoja
The plaintiff alleged repeated sexual and racial harassment, including inappropriate touching and racial slurs. Before trial, the court excluded evidence of harassment not personally witnessed by the plaintiff and limited racial bias evidence.
After a defense verdict, the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the trial court improperly excluded relevant “#MeToo” evidence.
Key Holding from Pantoja
The court clarified that while “#MeToo” evidence cannot be used to prove character or general propensity, it may be admitted to:
- Establish discriminatory intent or motive
- Impeach defense witnesses
- Attack credibility
The court distinguished earlier cases such as Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511 and Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, explaining that those cases did not bar admissibility for intent-based purposes.
Subsequent Cases Applying Pantoja
Later courts have relied on Pantoja to admit “#MeToo” evidence when properly limited to permissible purposes.
For example, in De La Cruz v. Cal-Sac Sonoma, LLC (2013) WL 782283, the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that testimony from another employee was inadmissible propensity evidence, holding it could be used to establish intent or motive.
Limits of the Doctrine: Hatai v. Department of Transportation
The doctrine has limits. In Hatai v. Department of Transportation (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1287, the court rejected “#MeToo” evidence involving employees outside the plaintiff’s protected class.
Because the plaintiff alleged discrimination based on Japanese ancestry, he could not introduce evidence of discrimination affecting employees who were not similarly situated within the same protected category.
Why #MeToo Evidence Matters in California Harassment Cases
California courts recognize that workplace discrimination often manifests through patterns of conduct rather than isolated incidents. When tied to the plaintiff’s protected class and legal claims, “#MeToo” evidence can provide powerful proof of discriminatory intent.
However, admissibility remains fact-specific and subject to judicial balancing under Evidence Code section 352.
If you believe you have experienced sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation in California, consult an experienced employment lawyer to evaluate your rights.