In this sex harassment case, the Court of Appeal reverses a denial of plaintiff’s new trial motion, finding that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the contents of complaints co-workers lodged against plaintiff. The fact that co-workers had complained about plaintiff was relevant since the complaints provided a possible motive for plaintiff to fabricate her own sex harassment case. However, the contents of the co-workers’ complaints should have been excluded under Evid. Code 352 as the contents were highly prejudicial attributing bad characteristics to plaintiff’s personality. Character evidence is generally made inadmissible because it is so likely to be irrelevant and prejudicial. Here, defendant’s exacerbated the problem in closing argument, urging the jury to find against plaintiff on the ground she was a bad person as the co-workers’ complaints showed. The trial court’s limiting instruction was insufficient to cure the problem.