Firm Home · Legal Resources · Law Updates
Glick v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two · 2026 · Published opinion (PDF)
Summary for general education only—not legal advice. This is not a Workplace Rights Advocacy case result. See Case Results for the firm’s own verdicts and settlements.
A published California Court of Appeal decision about FEHA damages—and whether a trial judge may slash a jury’s noneconomic award because the plaintiff did not call a psychiatrist. Los Angeles Police Department officers Stephen Glick and his co-plaintiff, both men, sued the City of Los Angeles for gender discrimination and retaliation. After an arrestee alleged a station-house battery, Internal Affairs treated the male officers more harshly than their female partners: phones, lockers, and cars were searched; they were benched from the field; and the chief of police moved toward termination while the women remained on patrol. When a union representative objected to the disparity, a high-ranking official said “this is something guys would do, not females.” A jury found for the officers and awarded Glick about $8.62 million (including future economic damages) and his co-plaintiff $4.5 million. The trial court later granted a conditional new trial unless they accepted a remittitur cutting the awards to $250,000 and $125,000.
The Court of Appeal reversed the new-trial order and reinstated the judgment. The officers’ own testimony about stress, family strain, career harm, financial injury, and (for one officer) a return to drinking was enough to support the noneconomic awards; expert medical testimony is not required for emotional distress within jurors’ common experience. A Code of Civil Procedure § 2032.320 stipulation—used to avoid a mental examination by limiting the claim to distress “usually associated” with the injuries—does not cap FEHA damages at a five-figure “garden-variety” range. The trial court abused its discretion by treating its own experience with typical awards as a legal ceiling and by discarding Glick’s testimony about future economic harm as inadmissible speculation. The City’s cross-appeal arguing passion and prejudice also failed; the size of a noneconomic award, standing alone, does not prove the jury was inflamed.
In plain English: California juries—not a judge’s personal sense of a “usual” emotional-distress number— decide what discrimination and retaliation are worth when the evidence supports the verdict. Skipping a psychological expert, or signing a stipulation to avoid a mental exam, does not give the court a license to reduce a FEHA award from millions to a few hundred thousand dollars. Related practice pages: gender discrimination, retaliation, and first responders.
Related: Gender Discrimination · Discrimination Claims · Retaliation Claims · First Responders · Los Angeles Employment Lawyers · Damages Guide