Sexual harassment and retaliation remain serious issues in the California workplace. Employees who face such treatment often turn to the courts to seek accountability and justice. However, mishandled sexual harassment claims can leave employees without recourse and allow misconduct to persist. A recent case from the California Court of Appeal—Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District—provides a powerful reminder of both the challenges employees face when reporting harassment and the legal standards that apply when such claims are tried in court.
This blog explains the facts of the Odom case, why the judgment in favor of the employee was reversed on appeal, and what California employees should take away from this unusual and troubling case.
The Odom Case: Understand Mishandled Sexual Harassment Claims
Dr. Sabrena Odom was a respected and tenured English professor at Los Angeles Southwest College, part of the Los Angeles Community College District. In addition to teaching, she served as director of the college’s Student Success Center, a role in which she earned praise for revitalizing and expanding support services for students. In 2016, Dr. Howard Irvin joined the college as Vice President of Student Services. According to Dr. Odom, what began as a routine professional relationship quickly turned into an ongoing pattern of sexual harassment.
Dr. Odom testified that the harassment began in early 2017, during a professional conference in San Francisco, where Dr. Irvin made inappropriate personal comments and later pressured her to drive back to Los Angeles with him. After returning to campus, she alleged that Dr. Irvin repeatedly summoned her to his office and used these meetings to make sexual comments, tell her she looked “sexy,” describe what her body looked like naked, and state that he wanted to have sex with her. According to Dr. Odom, these meetings—often necessary to obtain his approval for budget and staffing decisions—created a coercive dynamic. She testified that Dr. Irvin implied her career advancement and program funding would depend on her submission to his demands.
Dr. Odom alleged that Dr. Irvin would make lewd gestures, rub his genitals during meetings, and comment on how he would “tap that ass” as they walked across campus. When she consistently rejected his advances, she claimed he retaliated by targeting the Student Success Center and her staff. Specifically, she described how Dr. Irvin attempted to relocate the Center against her objections, suddenly announced he would become her direct supervisor, and abruptly terminated two long-standing student employees under questionable circumstances.
In November 2017, Dr. Odom formally reported the harassment to the college president. When she felt her concerns were not taken seriously, she escalated the matter to her union and later filed a formal internal complaint. The District’s internal investigator, Muriel Alford, ultimately concluded that Dr. Odom failed to substantiate her allegations. Dr. Odom characterized the investigation as dismissive, one-sided, and emotionally damaging. She said she felt “betrayed” and described physical and emotional symptoms of distress—including insomnia, anxiety, and fear for her personal safety—especially after someone anonymously left old newspaper articles under her door suggesting Dr. Irvin had a history of stalking and domestic violence during his previous career with the LAPD.
After exhausting the internal complaint process, Dr. Odom filed a lawsuit in 2018 under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Her claims included:
- Sexual harassment, based on Dr. Irvin’s repeated and unwanted conduct;
- Retaliation, for the negative actions allegedly taken against her and her program after she resisted;
- Failure to prevent harassment, on the grounds that the college failed to investigate and act;
- Negligent hiring and supervision, citing Dr. Irvin’s prior criminal record and the District’s failure to screen or respond properly.
After a three-week jury trial in 2022, the jury sided with Dr. Odom. She was awarded $10 million in noneconomic damages: $8.5 million against the District and $1.5 million against Dr. Irvin. The jury also found Dr. Irvin acted with malice or oppression, but declined to award punitive damages. However, this verdict would not stand.
In 2023, the California Court of Appeal reversed the judgment—not because Dr. Odom lacked evidence, but due to serious errors made during the trial. The court found that the trial judge improperly allowed highly prejudicial evidence, including:
- 20-year-old newspaper articles about Dr. Irvin’s prior criminal convictions, which had been expunged;
- Testimony from an unrelated student about sexual harassment by another administrator, in front of Dr. Irvin;
- And inflammatory argument that may have swayed the jury emotionally rather than focusing on the legal merits of the case.
Further, after the trial concluded, the judge made inappropriate and unrelated comments about race and gender during post-trial proceedings. A neutral judge ultimately disqualified him from the case, ruling that his conduct gave the appearance of partiality.
As a result, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding that the admitted evidence and judicial conduct had compromised the fairness of the proceedings.
Why the Court Reversed the Verdict
The appellate court found several serious errors that justified a new trial:
Reason #1: Prejudicial and Irrelevant Evidence Was Allowed
The trial judge admitted decades-old newspaper articles referencing Dr. Irvin’s past misdemeanor convictions, including stalking and domestic abuse. These convictions had been expunged and were not legally admissible in an employment context under California law.
The court held that allowing this inflammatory evidence—especially when it had no direct connection to Dr. Odom’s claims—created unfair prejudice against the defendants.
Reason #2: Improper Testimony from an Unrelated Witness
The trial court allowed a former student, Raquel Gonzalez, to testify about her own lawsuit and harassment by another administrator, not Dr. Irvin. This “me-too” testimony was not sufficiently related to Dr. Odom’s case and created confusion and prejudice, especially since it was emphasized in closing arguments.
Reason #3: Judicial Bias and Inappropriate Conduct
After the trial, the judge who presided over the case made inappropriate comments during post-trial proceedings, including racially charged and irrelevant statements. A neutral judge later disqualified him for cause, finding that a reasonable person could doubt his impartiality.
Taken together, these issues deprived the defendants of a fair trial, leading the Court of Appeal to reverse the verdict and order a new trial.
What California Employees Can Learn from Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District (Mishandled Sexual Harassment Claims)
You Have the Right to Report Harassment
Dr. Odom’s efforts to report harassment internally—first to the college president, then to HR, and eventually through a formal complaint—illustrate the importance of documenting and pursuing your concerns through every available channel.
Harassment Doesn’t Have to Be Physical
Repeated sexual comments, propositions, and threats to your professional standing can constitute sexual harassment under California law, even if no physical contact occurs.
Retaliation Is a Separate Violation
If your employer takes negative action against you because you refused a supervisor’s sexual advances or filed a complaint, you may have a separate retaliation claim under FEHA.
Employers Must Conduct Fair Investigations
Employers must take harassment complaints seriously and conduct thorough, unbiased investigations. A dismissive or one-sided investigation can lead to liability for failure to prevent harassment.
The Courtroom Process Matters
Even when an employee has a strong claim, the process by which that claim is tried must be fair. Judges must follow the rules of evidence, and both sides are entitled to a trial free from bias or undue influence.
For practical steps you can take when facing inappropriate conduct at work, see our guide on What Should I Do If I Experience Workplace Harassment.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
What does a mishandled sexual harassment claim look like?
A mishandled claim may involve a biased investigation, failure to act, or the use of improper evidence at trial, as seen in Odom v. LACCD.
Can I sue if my sexual harassment claim was ignored at work?
Yes. If your employer failed to investigate or prevent harassment, you may have a claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
What law protects California employees from sexual harassment?
California Government Code § 12940 prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
What should I do if my complaint is dismissed by HR?
Continue documenting and escalate to the DFEH or contact an employment attorney to evaluate your legal options.
Final Thoughts on Mishandled Sexual Harassment Claims
The Odom case is a sobering example of how errors in the legal process can derail even compelling claims of workplace harassment and retaliation. But it also affirms the protections California employees have under the law. If you believe you are experiencing harassment or retaliation, you should act quickly to protect your rights by documenting incidents, reporting them internally, and seeking legal advice.
At our firm, we represent employees who have been wronged by their employers—including those facing sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination. If you’re unsure whether what you’re experiencing is illegal, a confidential consultation can help clarify your options.
Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to Evaluate Your Potential Lawsuit
Matt Ruggles has a thorough understanding of California employment laws and decades of practical experience litigating employment law claims in California state and federal courts. Using all of his knowledge and experience, Matt and his team can quickly evaluate your potential claim and give you realistic advice on what you can expect if you sue your former employer.
Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 for a free, no obligation consultation.
Blog posts are not legal advice and are for information purposes only. Contact the Ruggles Law Firm for consideration of your individual circumstances.
