California Appellate Court Reinstates $13.1 Million Verdict in Gender Discrimination Case
The court reversed a lower court's remittitur, restoring the full jury award in a FEHA discrimination and retaliation suit.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 8:11 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 25, 2026, 8:11 p.m. ETFirst report
California Appellate Court Reinstates $13.1 Million Verdict in Gender Discrimination Case
A California appellate court has reinstated a $13.1 million jury verdict in a gender discrimination case against the City of Los Angeles, according to a report by the National Law Review. The court reversed the trial court's remittitur, which had reduced the jury's award.
The plaintiffs had alleged gender discrimination and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), claiming they were treated differently from female officers. The case, Glick v. City of Los Angeles, was decided at the appellate level.
The court's opinion reinstated the full jury verdict. The case is now adjudicated, with liability established.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 00:11current
First published.
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 00:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.