Hirst v. City of Oceanside
Annotate this CaseKimberli Hirst, an employee of American Forensic Nurses, Inc. (AFN), brought a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claim against the City of Oceanside (City), alleging she was sexually harassed by an Oceanside police officer, Gilbert Garcia, while she was providing phlebotomist services on behalf of the Oceanside Police Department. The jury found Hirst proved her claim and awarded her $1.5 million in damages against the City. After reducing the amount for which Garcia was found responsible, the court entered judgment in Hirst's favor for $1.125 million. The City moved for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). In the new trial motion, the City contended the damages award was unsupported by the evidence. In the JNOV motion, the City argued Hirst was not entitled to recover under the FEHA because she was not a City employee, special employee, or a "person providing services pursuant to a contract" under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (j)(1). The court denied the motion, but granted the new trial motion finding the damage award was excessive. The court ordered a new trial on both liability and damages because "the issues are so interrelated that damages cannot be separated from the facts underlying liability." Hirst did not appeal the new trial order, but the City appealed the denial of its JNOV motion, contending Hirst did not have standing to recover damages on her FEHA claim against the City. The Court of Appeal determined the evidence supported that Hirst was a "person providing services pursuant to a contract" and therefore she was entitled to recover against the City for its employee's sexual harassment. Based on that conclusion, the Court did not reach the additional asserted ground for standing (whether Hirst was a "special employee" of the City). The trial court's denial of the City's JNOV motion was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings under the new trial order.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.