One would think that indecent sexual conduct has disappeared from the entertainment industry in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandals. One would be wrong. Another Hollywood executive, who is also the heir to the Coca-Cola fortune, has demonstrated “highly reprehensible, degrading and outrageous behavior” toward a “low-wage industry worker.” A California appellate court has ruled that the $50 million-plus awarded to his former production assistant is non-excessive.

In a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, Presiding Justice Elwood Liu of the California Court of Appeals Second District, Second Division, ruled in favor of plaintiff Mahim Khan and against defendant Alkiviades David on May 27. The opinion stated that David “sexually battered his employee…engaging in despicable behavior witnessed by coworkers.” The decision affirmed the ruling of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michelle Williams.

Khan sued David and his companies in 2017, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. David cross-complained for extortion and emotional distress. His pleading was stricken and he was ordered to pay $19,628 in attorney’s fees. He did not appeal. Khan then tried to get David to respond to many discovery requests that he continually ignored or behaved so badly during depositions that Williams barred him from testifying in his own defense.

Judge Liu did not mince words when he affirmed the punitive and non-economic compensatory damage awards given to Khan by the Superior Court. He was upset by David’s “cavalier treatment” of Khan’s harassment suit and his failure to appear for depositions, produce documents, answer interrogatories, or pay court-ordered sanctions. His behavior during the trial was “insulting,” and full of “profane outbursts.” He was barred from testifying at his trial. His totally unacceptable, “loud and profane” misbehavior continued throughout the trial.

At the close of David’s trial, the jury found either he, his company or both of them liable for battery, sexual battery, sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment and violating the federal Fair Employment and Housing Act. It awarded Khan $50 million in punitive damages and over $8 million in compensatory damages. David challenged the “excessive” verdict and also claimed that several rulings during the trial were incorrect. Liu found none of his arguments “meritorious.”

Liu’s opinion elaborated on the plaintiff’s history. He explained that she was raised in a devout Muslim home by a physically and mentally abusive father and compliant mother. After graduating from college as a communications major, she worked in real estate for a while, then got a job at one of the defendant’s production companies, FilmOn TV and Alki David Productions.

The opinion went into detail about David’s sexual behavior against Khan that began when she was hired in December 2014. Many of them, including simulations of oral sex “about 20 times per month,” were witnessed by other employees, three of whom corroborated Khan’s descriptions when they testified at trial. One witness said that “David spoke of his wealth frequently and it was obvious and palpable that he felt his wealth gave him license to do whatever he wanted without consequences.” One witness, who was also sexually harassed, had already been awarded over $4 million in a different trial. Liu said that David clearly did not learn his lesson.

David also showed pornographic videos to Khan and others. He continued to make her come into his office for more sexual pantomimes, which included inappropriate touching of her breasts and vagina. When his employees created and shared a new sexual harassment policy, David “laughed, crumpled it, tossed it on the table, and left the meeting.”

Khan became physically and mentally disturbed. She wanted to quit but knew she could not pay her rent without a job. She finally resigned in October 2015. David asked her to return, but she “did not want to work in an unsafe place.” Her health became perilous and she had “flashbacks” and “suicidal thoughts.” She had no insurance and could not afford treatment. At trial, an expert witness, who teaches classes on sexual assault trauma at UCLA Medical School, said Khan’s “conservative religious roots and history of abuse made her vulnerable to David’s behavior.” He diagnosed her with “post-traumatic stress and major depressive disorders.” He said it was “unlikely she will ever fully recover.”

After the verdict, David appealed and Khan asked that his appeal be dismissed. Liu reviewed all of David’s pre-trial and trial antics, but concluded that the trial court had given him many “second chances” and had already imposed monetary and evidentiary sanctions. Also, Liu wrote, “Juvenile behavior is not an adequate reason to dismiss David's appeal.” In addition, David failed to raise objections at appropriate times during the trial. The trial court also acted appropriately after David fired all his attorneys during the trial. When representing himself, he continued his “ridiculous, “insulting,” and outrageous conduct. The trial judge did not abuse her discretion when she revoked his right to self-representation.

On many occasions, David failed to object to trial issues and thus, forfeited his right to preserve them for appellate review. The court also found “no error” in the damage awards, explaining that David had to raise the issue in a motion for a new trial because claims for “excessive punitive damages cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Also, his “reprehensible behavior” met “constitutional guideposts” of cases that set precedent. Liu said his “physical attacks, humiliations…degrading and outrageous behavior” meets constitutional standards of reasonableness

Liu concluded that David “squandered the opportunity” to tell the jury his side of the story. His discovery violations, skipped dispositions, failure to provide requested documents, and misconduct at trial, were enough to make him “face the consequence of his chosen path.” Therefore, “there was no miscarriage of justice.”