On the evening of Friday, Aug. 10, 2012, plaintiff Michael Sweet, 25, a journeyman laborer, allegedly met his project supervisor, Kent Davis, at an RV park after work hours. Sweet was hired by Russell Construction Co. eight days earlier to perform finish work on a retail store renovation project in San Diego. On Friday night, Aug. 10, 2012, Sweet was allegedly supposed to meet Davis for drinks after work hours. However, Sweet claimed he was coerced by Davis to engage in oral sex activities in exchange for job benefits. Sweet claimed that following the incident, he never returned to work on the project. Sweet sued Davis and Russell Construction Co., which was doing business as Texas Russell Construction Co. Sweet alleged the defendants’ actions constituted sexual harassment, sexual orientation discrimination, a failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, constructive discharge in violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defense counsel both argued that Sweet’s claims were completely fabricated. Counsel for Russell Construction further argued that regardless of what Sweet alleged, any interactions between Sweet and Davis on the evening of Aug. 10, 2012, were not work-related., Sweet claimed that as a result of the incident, he suffers from severe emotional distress with bouts of depression and anxiety, for which he is seeking therapy. He also claimed he suffered a loss of earnings of approximately $35 per hour. Sweet claimed that he would have continued to work on additional projects with Russell Construction for 10 years, but that he could not due to his constructive discharge. Thus, Sweet sought recovery of past and future loss of earnings, and recover of non-economic damages for his emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed all of Sweet’s claims, and argued that Sweet presented no evidence of any alleged psychological . Counsel also argued that neither Davis nor Russell Construction caused Sweet any emotional distress and that Sweet quit the construction job on his own terms. Thus, defense counsel contended that Sweet was not entitled to any damages for lost earnings.