California Court Rejects Cap on Damages for “Garden-Variety” Emotional Distress 

A recent California Court of Appeal decision reminds employers that discrimination and harassment cases can produce substantial emotional distress awards – even where the employee did not seek mental health treatment or present expert testimony concerning his or her mental or emotional condition.  

In Glick v. City of Los Angeles, the court reinstated a $13.1 million jury verdict for two LAPD officers who prevailed on gender-discrimination and retaliation claims. The judgment included $12.5 million in noneconomic damages: $8 million for Stephen Glick and $4.5 million for Alfred Garcia.

The key holding

The trial court had sharply reduced the emotional distress awards, reasoning that the plaintiffs claimed only “garden-variety” distress and offered no testimony from psychologists, psychiatrists, or treating providers.

The Court of Appeal rejected that approach. California law does not impose a fixed cap on emotional distress damages simply because plaintiffs do not seek specialized psychiatric damages or present expert testimony. In Glick, the Court of Appeal found that the multi-million-dollar award was supported by the evidence.

Why employers should care

The decision emphasizes how costly workplace harassment and discrimination can be. It also confirms that an employee’s own testimony can support a significant award for emotional distress. Jurors may consider evidence of humiliation, anxiety, professional harm, family strain, financial stress, fear about one’s career, and damage to personal dignity – without any medical records or expert opinions. 

For employers, the absence of therapy, diagnosis, or an emotional distress expert remains important evidence to develop and argue. But it is not a reliable limit on potential damages.

Practical takeaway

Employment decisions and investigations can create substantial exposure when they are perceived as discriminatory or retaliatory—particularly where internal communications suggest sex-based assumptions or unequal treatment.

Employers should:

• Apply investigation and discipline standards consistently across employees.
• Train managers to avoid remarks that reflect stereotypes or protected-characteristic bias.
• Document legitimate reasons for workplace decisions as they occur.
• Evaluate noneconomic-damages exposure early in discrimination and retaliation matters, even when the employee alleges only “ordinary” emotional distress.

Glick provides a stark lesson that, in California employment litigation, “garden variety” does not mean low value.