On Nov. 14, 2013, plaintiff Catrina Hanna, 39, a librarian for the city of Long Beach, filled out an incident report, summarizing events in which a male transient had repeatedly stalked and harassed her. Hanna claimed that in 2009, shortly after she was transferred to the city’s main library, which was located by the Civic Center, in downtown Long Beach, she observed a male transient on the computers in the children’s area looking at naked and/or scantily clad women. She also claimed that the male transient acted in a threatening and aggressive manner toward her, a female patron, and another city employee on several occasions. She alleged that the transient made her feel stalked, unsafe, and sexually harassed. Hanna claimed that due to the harassment, she developed a mental disability due to stress, depression and anxiety starting in September 2013. As a result, she filled out an incident report on Nov. 14, 2013, summarizing the alleged events and claiming that the male transient had repeatedly stalked and harassed her. She also asked that a permanent ban be imposed on the transient, but her request was denied. Thereafter, Hanna took off of work for her alleged mental condition in January 2014, February 2014, and March 2014. During that time, in February 2014, Hanna asked to be transferred, but her request was denied. She also applied for three jobs with the city and had the interviews in March and April of 2014, but was not accepted for any of the jobs, even though she was allegedly ranked by an external panel as the top candidate out of 20. Hanna ultimately quit her position on May 2, 2014. She claimed she was constructively discharged in retaliation for complaining of the harassment and an unsafe working environment. Hanna sued the city of Long Beach. She brought claims of sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA); retaliation for complaining of sexual harassment and for requesting medical accommodations under FEHA; retaliation for complaining of unsafe working conditions in violation of Labor Code § 6310; wrongful denial of protected leave under the California Family Rights Act and/or The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA); retaliation for asking for protected leave under FMLA; discrimination due to her mental disabilities; failure to accommodate her medical conditions; failure to engage in the interactive process; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also alleged a cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation and harassment. The court ultimately granted summary adjudication as to Hanna’s causes of action for sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding that the city was not responsible for the actions of a third-party transient over whom the city had no control. In addition, prior to deliberations, Hanna dismissed her cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Thus, the matter proceeded to deliberations on the causes of action for retaliation under FEHA, for complaining of sexual harassment and requesting accommodations; failure to accommodate under FEHA; failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA; mental disability discrimination under FEHA; retaliation under Labor Code § 6310; and wrongful denial of medical leave under CFRA/FMLA, as well as retaliation for requesting and taking said leave. Hanna claimed she multiple interactions with the transient man that left her feeling stalked, unsafe, and sexually harassed, but that the city failed to do anything about it. Specifically, she claimed that after she observed the male transient in the children’s area looking at naked and/or scantily clad women on computers in 2009, she had a confrontation with him on April 27, 2012, during which the transient acted in a threatening and aggressive manner toward her and a female patron. She also claimed that the male transient was waiting for her in the Broadway parking structure on March 21, 2013, during which he lunged at her and yelled profanities at her. She further claimed that he was sneering and commented in a violent tone that he hoped she would die. In addition, Hanna claimed that on Jan. 14, 2014, the male transient was standing outside her window, blowing kisses at her. She stated that as a result, she called the police, and the male transient was arrested. However, she claimed that, thereafter, another female city employee reported to her that the male transient yell profanities at her and that during another incident, the male transient physically exposed himself to patrons. Hanna ultimately filled out an incident report on Nov. 14, 2013, summarizing the alleged events and claiming that the male transient had repeatedly stalked and harassed her. She also asked to have the transient permanently banned and/or to be transferred to another library in February 2014, but that both requests were denied. She alleged that when the city refused to ban the transient, she applied for three jobs with the city in February 2014, and had interviews in March and April of 2014, but that she was not accepted for any of the jobs even though she was ranked by an external panel as the top candidate of 20. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the other female city employee, who was allegedly assaulted at work by another patron, testified that she did not believe the city library took safety concerns seriously. Hanna claimed that she developed a mental disability due to stress, depression and anxiety as a result of the harassment. She claimed that as a result, she took medical leave for her mental condition in January 2014, February 2014, and March 2014, but that although she was granted protected leave in January and February of 2014, she was denied protected leave on various dates in March 2014 and April 2014 in retaliation for alleging sexual harassment and an unsafe working environment, and for requesting medical leave. In addition, she claimed that on March 27, 2014, she received a letter of reprimand for taking medical leave. Hanna claimed that because she complained of the harassment and an unsafe working environment, she was retaliated against. She also claimed that she was denied medical leave and retaliated for taking medical leave. In addition, she claimed that she was discriminated against because of her disability due to her mental condition, and was denied reasonable accommodations and a good faith interactive process. Hanna alleged that as a result, she was constructively discharged, in that she was forced to quit her position on May 2, 2014. Defense counsel argued that Hanna’s alleged interactions with the male transient amounted to only a few seconds of passing contacts, some of which were not even at the library, and that although Hanna claimed the transient blew kisses at her and exposed himself, none of those claims were ultimately proven. Counsel also argued that Hanna was not retaliated against for requesting or taking medical leave, for making complaints of sexual harassment, or for complaining of unsafe working conditions. Defense counsel argued that while Hanna took some time off for reported mental conditions, she was not disabled and, therefore, required no reasonable accommodations or good faith interactive process. Defense counsel further argued that Hanna was not subjected to any adverse employment actions and that the city was motivated by legitimate business decisions. Counsel contended that Hanna request for a transfer could not be accommodated at the time because no equal, vacant position existed and because the city had no obligation to create a position for her. Counsel also contended that Hanna had applied for a promotion in the same library from which she claimed that she was constructively discharged, but that Hanna was not promoted because, in each instance, the individual selected was the most qualified applicant. Defense counsel further argued that Hanna did not properly make a request for protected leave and, therefore, was not wrongfully denied or harmed in any way. Counsel contended that while the city did issue a letter of reprimand on March 27, 2014, as a result of Hanna for taking leave, it was issued because Hanna’s leave was unprotected and never authorized. Counsel contended that, regardless, there was no evidence that Hanna was disciplined or harmed. Thus, defense counsel argued that Hanna was not constructively discharged, but that Hanna voluntarily resigned for personal reasons., Hanna was librarian with the city from 2007 to 2014. After she quit, she substituted part-time as a librarian and tutored for $10 per hour. Hanna claimed she suffered anxiety, depression and stress. As a result, she had counseling from September 2013 through the time of trial, although there were some gaps in between treatments. She had also seen psychologists, psychiatrists and medical doctors throughout. The plaintiff’s expert psychologist opined that Hanna did not have post-traumatic stress disorder, but, instead, had adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The expert opined that Hanna’s condition was due to an interaction with the transient in May 2013, which manifested in a panic attack in September 2013. While Hanna’s psychological records identified panic attacks due to boyfriend-related issues, the plaintiff’s expert opined that the interaction in May 2013 lay dormant until September 2013, and then erupted in the reported symptoms. Specifically, the expert testified that while Hanna initially attributed her condition to her boyfriend, her symptoms were really from the transient incidents and her work, which defense noted only first started to be mentioned in the notes in February 2014. The plaintiff’s expert psychologist further opined that Hanna’s symptoms waxed and waned since February 2014 to present and that Hanna will need aggressive treatment for two years, including medication and cognitive retraining one to two times per week. (Defense counsel noted that Hanna was already on various medications.) The plaintiff’s expert economist compared Hanna’s current salary with the one she previously had with the city, which was $75,000 annually, plus benefits, and testified that Hanna’s wage loss would be between $600,000 and $1.8 million, depending on her ability to find a job. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Hanna almost $9 million in general and special damages. Defense counsel argued that Hanna’s panic attacks were related to her boyfriend, just as her initial psychological records indicated, and that it was not until February 2014, when she strategized to bring suit, that Hanna began mentioning the transient and work to her therapist. Thus, counsel argued that any mental conditions that Hanna had during her employment with the city, or at the time of trial, were unrelated to her limited interactions with the transient or her employment. As such, counsel argued that Hanna was not entitled to any recovery for her treatment. Furthermore, defense counsel argued that Hanna was not in any way limited from her ability to work as a librarian, as she was not deemed disabled or cognitively deficient in any way. The defense’s neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry experts opined that adjustment disorder is immediate and that there would be a delay of no more than three months for the symptoms to manifest. Thus, they opined that it would be impossible for Hanna’s symptoms to not appear until September 2013, had they been related to the May 2013 interaction with the transient. The experts also opined that the symptoms do not wax and wane and that they can be resolved within six months. The neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry experts further agreed that Hanna has anxiety and depression, but opined that Hanna’s condition was not caused by the city. They concluded that Hanna’s anxiety and depression were issues that Hanna had beforehand and were caused by Hanna dealing with overmedication, various medical issues, a difficult upbringing (including being abandoned by her mother), and an abusive boyfriend. Thus, the experts opined that Hanna did not need any treatment, and rejected that Hanna had adjustment disorder, but, instead, opined that Hanna had PTSD. Defense counsel noted that Hanna’s own psychologist found that Hanna over-reported on her psychological test. Although defense counsel proffered the exaggeration was due to litigation, Hanna’s psychologist said Hanna could have had more than one response. The defense’s expert economist testified that it was economically unreasonable for a person with a Master’s degree to make $17,000 annually and less than minimum wage tutoring. The expert opined that because Hanna had a Master’s degree, she could earn $60,000, according to nationwide studies, and $76,000 in Los Angeles. Therefore, the expert economist opined that there would have been no significant loss of earnings, had Hanna returned to gainful employment within three to six months of leaving the city’s employment, which the expert believed would have been a reasonable time period to find a job.