In Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, the plaintiff sued her former employer and his firm for race and sex discrimination and hostile work environment harassment. The trial court ruled, both before and during trial, that evidence of the employer's alleged discriminatory and harassing treatment of other female employees was only admissible if it occurred in the plaintiff's presence or adversely affected her work environment. (Pantoja, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 94, 99.) The trial court thus excluded evidence of the employer's sexual harassment of other female employees who did not begin working at the firm until after the plaintiff's employment was terminated. (Id. at pp. 97-99.) The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding such evidence because it "was admissible to show intent under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), to impeach the employer's credibility as a witness, and to rebut factual claims made by defense witnesses." (Id. at p. 110.) As the Court of Appeal explained, "the me-too evidence was relevant both to prove gender bias and to rebut the defense evidence that employer had a policy of not tolerating harassment and a practice of not directing profanity at individuals. If, as the me-too evidence tended to show, the employer lacked this policy and practice when the plaintiff was not present and during times when she was not an employee, the jury could rationally infer that he also lacked them when she was an employee and was present." (Id. at p. 116.)