Court Reinstated Los Angeles Jury Award in 2026
The California Court of Appeal restored millions in damages for two former police department employees.
Updated on Sept. 22, 2026 in Human Resources
Live Poll
Should courts establish a maximum limit on the amount of emotional distress damages in civil lawsuits?
In 2026, the California Court of Appeal reinstated a jury verdict for gender discrimination and retaliation against the City of Los Angeles. The ruling restored the original emotional distress and future economic damage awards for plaintiffs Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia.
Why it matters
The decision clarified that there is no fixed legal ceiling for emotional distress damages, nor is expert medical testimony required to prove such claims. It effectively overruled a trial court order that had sought to limit those payouts to comparatively modest amounts.
A jury originally awarded Stephen Glick $8.6 million and Alfred Garcia $4.5 million in damages following discrimination claims. The trial court had previously attempted to reduce these figures to $250,000 and $125,000 respectively.
The players
Stephen Glick
He is a former Los Angeles Police Department employee who successfully sued the city for retaliation and gender discrimination.
Alfred Garcia
He is a plaintiff in the discrimination lawsuit against the city who was awarded millions in damages by a jury.
Los Angeles Police Department
This is the primary law enforcement agency for the City of Los Angeles that was the subject of the discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.
California Court of Appeal
This is the state-level judicial body that reversed the trial court's order for a new trial and reinstated the original jury judgment.
The details
The plaintiffs alleged that the Los Angeles Police Department subjected them to disparate treatment and retaliation. Evidence presented included testimony from an economist regarding how the incident forced a change in retirement age from 55 down to 50, and a high-ranking official who dismissed reports by stating, "This is something guys do, not females."
Timeline
The Court of Appeal issued the decision in 2026.
Market Landscape
This case establishes a significant legal precedent for employment litigation by rejecting the notion of a fixed ceiling for emotional distress damages. It follows a pattern set by the Glick v. City of LA appellate ruling, which serves to reset how local municipal entities must approach settlement and damage expectations.
This decision impacts how municipal employees and taxpayers view litigation outcomes, as it removes arbitrary caps on emotional distress claims. Public agencies may now face higher financial exposure for discrimination and retaliation claims within the city.
The takeaway
The appellate ruling serves as a vital reminder that workplace discrimination claims can carry significant long-term financial consequences for employers. Employees who experience disparate treatment should document all incidents and seek legal counsel to understand their rights regarding economic and emotional distress damages.
Further reading
For more information on legal standards in the workplace, visit the Human Resources section.
Live Poll
Should courts establish a maximum limit on the amount of emotional distress damages in civil lawsuits?
