The Court found the lower court improperly excluded evidence of the employer's alleged gender bias in the form of harassing activity against women employees other than the plaintiff. Although the excluded “me too” evidence related to harassing activity that occurred outside the plaintiff's presence — and even at times when she was not an employee — it should have been admitted as evidence of a discriminatory or biased intent or motive under California Evidence Code § 1101(b), the Court of Appeal concluded. The lower court's exclusion of the evidence on the grounds it was propensity or character evidence under Evidence Code § 1101(a) therefore was prejudicial.

Lorraine Pantoja v. Thomas J. Anton, et al. Court of Appeals, Fifth District (August 9, 2011)Under California Evidence Code section 1101, "character" evidence relating to a person's character or character trait is inadmissible to prove his or her conduct on a specific occasion. However, under this section "character" evidence is admissible to prove some other fact in issue, such as the person's intent or state of mind.