In a sexual harassment case brought against CRST, what is the test for admitting or excluding "me too" witness evidence?

harassment case brought against CRST. Given the trial court's broad discretion to admit and exclude evidence, these claims fail. (Collins v. Navistar, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1513 [ruling affirmed unless trial court exceeds "'"'bounds of reason'"'"].)

a. Admission of "Me-too" Witness Evidence

Defendants contend the trial court erroneously admitted evidence that eight other female drivers at CRST ("me-too" witnesses) also complained of harassment, some before and some after plaintiff's complaint. The trial court found this evidence had "independent probative value" "under Evidence Code [s]ection 1101(b)," which permits "admission of evidence that a person committed a . . . civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, intent . . . plan, or knowledge) other than his disposition to commit such an act." (See Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 110 [me-too evidence in a sexual harassment case probative under Evidence Code section 1101(b) to show discriminatory intent].)