Mokler v. County of Orange
Mokler v. County of Orange, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1933 (2007)
Summary
In Pamela M. Mokler v. County of Orange, the California Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's decisions regarding Mokler's claims of retaliatory discharge and sexual harassment. The court held that the County waived its defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that substantial evidence supported Mokler's retaliatory dismissal claim. However, it found that the alleged harassment by County Supervisor Chris Norby was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment, leading to the reversal of the harassment claim's judgment.
Explore this Case with AI
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
Facts
•
Mokler alleges retaliatory discharge in violation of California's whistleblower statute and sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment.
•
The County contends Mokler failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
•
Mokler alleges Chris Norby sexually harassed her, creating a hostile work environment.
•
Mokler challenges the trial court's order granting the County a new trial on damages, conditioned on her refusing a remitted damage award.
•
Pamela Mokler was terminated from her position with the County of Orange.
•
Mokler claims the County retaliated against her for reporting suspected illegal activity related to the Office on Aging's (OoA) contracts department.
Key Holdings
•
Yes, substantial evidence supports the new trial order on damages.
•
Yes, substantial evidence supports Mokler's retaliatory dismissal claim.
•
No, Norby's alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Mokler's employment and create an abusive working environment.
•
Yes, the County waived its exhaustion defense by failing to raise it before trial.
Citations
Mokler v. County of Orange, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1933, 27 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 241, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 568, 157 Cal. App. 4th 121, 102 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 500 (2007)
Legal Reasoning
The court found that the County waived its exhaustion defense by failing to raise it before trial. The court also found that substantial evidence supported Mokler's retaliatory dismissal claim. However, the court found that Mokler's sexual harassment claim against Norby failed because the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Mokler's employment and create an abusive working environment. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the new trial order on damages.
Outcome
The trial court's order denying JNOV was reversed as to the harassment claim, but otherwise affirmed. The new trial order was affirmed.
Want to Learn More About StrongSuit?
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required
Copyright 2026 StrongSuit AI, Inc. | All Rights Reserved