CALDERA v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A correctional officer with a stutter was repeatedly mocked by his supervisor and coworkers. The court affirmed a jury verdict, finding the verbal harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that persistent verbal mockery of a disability, especially when perpetrated by a supervisor and reflective of a workplace culture, can satisfy the ‘severe or pervasive’ standard for harassment under FEHA, even absent physical threats or contact.
CALDERA v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Augustine Caldera, a correctional officer for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), has a stutter. Over approximately two years, his supervisor, Sergeant James Grove, and other employees mocked or mimicked his stutter on at least a dozen occasions. The harassment often occurred in front of other employees. In one incident, Grove mimicked Caldera over the prison’s radio system, which was broadcast to about 50 employees. In another, Grove told Caldera “F-f-f-f**k you” in front of approximately 24 officers during a shift change. Even after Caldera filed an EEO complaint, Grove continued the mockery during a supervisor training class. A senior prison official, Dr. Jordan, testified that he had witnessed the mocking on numerous occasions and described it as part of the prison’s “culture of joking” about Caldera’s stutter. A jury found the CDCR and Grove liable for disability harassment and failure to prevent harassment, awarding Caldera $500,000 in noneconomic damages. The trial court granted a new trial on the issue of damages, which the defendants appealed and Caldera cross-appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Was the repeated verbal mocking of an employee’s stutter by a supervisor and coworkers, including over a prison-wide radio system, sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable disability harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)?
Yes. Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the harassment was both Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Was the repeated verbal mocking of an employee’s stutter by a supervisor and coworkers, including over a prison-wide radio system, sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable disability harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)?
Conclusion
This case provides a strong precedent that non-physical, verbal harassment targeting a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru
Legal Rule
To establish a claim for disability harassment under FEHA, a plaintiff must Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nul
Legal Analysis
The court evaluated the harassment claim under the 'totality of the circumstances' Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: Repeatedly mocking an employee’s stutter, especially by a supervisor and