Honorable Jacqueline M. Stern; Overturns Kimberli Hirst, Sexual Harassment Case – Oceanside California


List of Oceanside Judges: http://attorney.sddt.com/Directory/browse.cfm?m=SDCSCJudges&o=100

August 8, 2013 – Oceanside California  (10News) – A judge has overturned a jury’s ruling to give $1.5 million to the victim in a sexual harassment suit against the city of Oceanside.

A jury decided 11-to-1 that then-Oceanside police Officer Gil Garcia sexually harassed his coworker, Kimberli Hirst. It took four weeks of trial, but in the end the jury awarded Hirst $1.5 million and held the city liable because it happened on the job.

It was a decision that the city attorney sent to Judge Jacqueline Stern for approval.

“The judge deleted the jury’s verdict,” said Hirst’s attorney, Dwight Ritter. “She just whipped it away.”

In this ruling, Stern wrote the victim’s testimony about her harassment “appeared staged at times.”

Stern went on to write, “(she) cried numerous times during her trial testimony, but admitted that when she eventually discussed the harassment four years ago (when it happened) she did not cry,” ultimately saying that Hirst was “not credible.”

“The city of Oceanside found her credible,” said Ritter. “They believed her testimony. They believed what they said about this man harassing her sexually to such an extent that they went and terminated the police officer.”

Stern could have decided to award any amount of damages she deemed fit from $1 to the original $1.5 million.

Despite an almost unanimous jury decision – considered an overwhelming landslide in cases like this – the judge decided to award nothing.

Now, they have two decisions: appeal or have another trial, which is something they may do following an 11-to-1 win. But even if they won a second trial, the judge could do the same thing all over again.

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s