On Dec. 12, 2016, plaintiff Guillermo Burger, 20, a barista, went to the Starbucks coffeehouse where he worked, in Mountain View, on his day off to make a purchase via his employee benefit. He went to the bathroom at a little after 4 p.m. and observed a sewage overflow. He reported it to the store supervisor, who allegedly asked him to assist with stopping the sewage. Burger and other employees then tried to stop the flow from spreading into the front of the store, as plumbers were called to fix the sewage issue. At around 7 p.m., the shift supervisor told Burger to clock in. The plumbers finished fixing the sewage issue and cleaned the store with bleach that they had brought with them. Burger claimed that the plumbers told the Starbucks employees to leave, but the store manager, Justin Cordova, ordered them to stay and clean up as usual. Burger claimed he and the other employees were then asked to complete the usual store closing procedures, which included cleaning up with store brand Kay chemical cleaners. Burger claimed that as he cleaned the floors with the standard floor cleaning solution, under the direction of the store management, the combination of the bleach used by the plumbers and the store’s floor cleaning solution reacted, causing a toxic gas to be created. He alleged that as a result, he was injured by the exposure to toxic chemicals and toxic gas. Burger took a leave of absence to recover from his alleged . During that time, Cordova made workers’ compensation claims for the four employees who were allegedly injured as a result of the incident, and Burger received self-insured workers’ compensation benefits, which included medical treatment. However, Burger claimed that he was terminated from his employment on Jan. 1, 2017, while he was still on medical leave. He also claimed that Starbucks, which is self-insured, did not follow workers’ compensation law. Burger sued Cordova and the operator of the coffeehouse, Starbucks Corp. Burger initially alleged that Cordova created a hostile work environment, as Cordova allegedly mistreated him because of favoritism and jealously, and that Cordova’s sexual harassment of another employee further created a hostile work environment. Burger also initially alleged that Starbucks did not allow overtime at his particular store, so his time sheet was modified by Cordova on the date of the subject incident. However, Burger ultimately alleged that the defendants caused him to be injured at work, attempted to fraudulently conceal his and retaliated against him by wrongfully terminating his employment. Specifically, Burger brought claims based on exceptions to workers’ compensation’s exclusive remedy rules, including fraudulent concealment pursuant to Labor Code § 3602(b)(2), premises liability under the dual capacity doctrine, and retaliation pursuant to Labor Code § 1102.5. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the machine dispenser used to mix the cleaning floor product was not calibrated annually and was possibly broken on the date of the incident. Counsel argued that as a result, the meter and mixture would have been off, causing the cleaner to still have a high concentration of chemicals, so that toxic fumes were created when the cleaning product was used with bleach chlorine. Defense counsel argued that Burger voluntarily resigned from his employment and could not prove that he was discharged. Counsel also argued that Burger’s lawsuit was barred by the workers’ compensation rule of exclusivity. Through motions in limine, defense counsel had excluded from evidence the plaintiff’s industrial hygiene expert’s opinions as to the alleged dangerousness of the cleaning chemicals used by Burger. As a result, the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion that Burger was working in “toxic chlorine gas” as a result of the reaction between the floor cleaning chemical being used by Burger and the bleach used by a plumber was excluded from trial. Defense counsel relied on the recent case of Sargon Enterprises Inc. v. University of Southern Cal., 55 Cal. 4th 747 (2012), to exclude the plaintiff’s industrial hygiene expert’s testimony as inadmissible because it was allegedly based on speculation and conjecture. Defense counsel filed a motion for summary judgment based on workers’ compensation exclusivity, but it was denied. Later, at the close of the plaintiff’s case, after seven days of trial, defense counsel moved for nonsuit pursuant to C.C.P. § 581c. Defense counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence that would permit or allow the jury to find some of the necessary elements for each of the plaintiff’s three causes of action. Counsel further argued that there was no direct evidence regarding several of the necessary elements and that there was no indirect evidence from which a permissible inference could be drawn., Burger claimed he suffered chemical burn , causing irritation and damage to his lungs. Prior to the incident, Burger played college soccer. However, he claimed that he was later denied an opportunity to pursue athletic scholarships at certain universities as a result of his decreased lung capacity and inability to perform at the same level as he had before the incident. Burger sought recovery of past and future medical costs, future lost earnings, and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of punitive damages as a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct. Defense counsel argued that Burger suffered no injury as a result of his exposure to sewage water or the bleach used by the plumbers, and that there was no chemical reaction between the bleach and the store floor cleaner. Counsel argued that as a result, Burger suffered no damages.