In December 2012, plaintiff Valerie Russo, a chief cook in her 50s aboard APL Marine Services, Ltd.’s container vessel, the “APL KOREA,” broke off her relationship with the captain of the vessel, James Londagin. Russo and Londagin had a consensual sexual relationship since 2004, predating her work aboard the vessel. However, Russo later broke off her relationship with Londagin during a voyage to Japan when she realized that Londagin was happily married, despite him repeatedly assuring her that he was divorced and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her. Russo claimed that Londagin then admitted that he deceived her to join him on the ship because of her cooking abilities. She claimed that thereafter, Londagin harassed and wrongfully terminated her. Russo sued Londagin and APL Marine Services, Ltd. Russo claimed that the defendants’ actions constituted sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and battery under California state law. She also brought claims of Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure under federal maritime law. Prior to trial, APL investigated the incident and terminated Londagin because of his alleged abuse of Russo. APL’s counsel then moved for partial summary judgment against Russo’s California employment law claims on the ground that all of the alleged sexual harassment took place outside of California and in international waters. The court granted the motion, and also dismissed Russo’s unseaworthiness claim because Londagin’s alleged conduct did not rise to the level necessary to make the vessel unseaworthy. In addition, Russo’s battery cause of action was dismissed early on pursuant to a motion to dismiss because there were no allegations of physical contact in complaint. Thus, the only remaining claim was Russo’s claim of Jones Act negligence. The matter was ultimately removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court and move to federal court on April 25, 2014. In addition, Londagin was dismissed from the case just before trial. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Londagin had ultimate control of all decisions made aboard the vessel and, therefore, APL was vicariously liable for Londagin’s actions in wrongfully terminating and harassing Russo. Russo claimed Londagin’s harassment included demanding “make up sex,” banging on her cabin door late at night and demanding to be let in, laying on the deck outside her cabin door, and slapping her on the buttock in a sexual way. She also claimed that Londagin’s actions caused her to fear for her safety. APL’s counsel contended that Londagin’s actions were outside the course and scope of his job duties and that, if true, they were all related to the private sexual relationship, which Londagin and Russo had prior to their working together aboard APL’s vessel. Counsel also contended that APL was never told by Londagin or Russo that they had a consensual sexual relationship before Russo was hired to work aboard its vessel with Londagin and that it was not until after Russo was fired and complained of sexual harassment that APL was first made aware of the pre-existing relationship or Londagin’s alleged conduct aboard its vessel. In addition, counsel contended that Russo was never in any danger, and did not actually or reasonably fear for her own safety at any time aboard the vessel., Russo claimed that she suffers from severe psychological and emotional distress as a result of Londagin’s treatment of her aboard APL’s vessel. The plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist and family therapist (psychotherapist) testified about how Russo was beaten and raped by her first husband at age 16. Thus, the therapists opined that Russo was predisposed to severe depression and anxiety due to betrayal in romantic relationships of the sort that Londagin perpetrated. According to plaintiff’s counsel, the opinion was corroborated by the defense’s psychiatry expert. Russo was off of work for approximately one year and four months after Londagin terminated her. Thus, she claimed that her lost wages totaled approximately $100,000. She also claimed that her medical expenses for therapy and psychiatric treatment totaled approximately $97,500. However, all of her medical expenses were paid by APL under its maritime law “maintenance and cure” obligation. Russo abandoned her claim for maintenance and cure before trial because it had been paid by APL. Thus, Russo sought recovery of approximately $100,000 in lost wages and an unspecified amount of damages for her past and future emotional distress. Russo also sought recovery of attorney fees, and punitive damages under her state law employment claims.