On Dec. 16, 2010, plaintiff Nicole Smith was applying to be a cadet with the California Highway Patrol. As part of the CHP cadet application process, Smith took a background-screening test — the Critical Voice Stress Analysis test — at the CHP Northern Division headquarters in Redding. Smith claimed that the officer administrating the test asked her several intrusive, highly personal and offensive questions about her sex life, including how old was she when she lost her virginity, how many sexual partners had she had, would she ever consider cheating on her husband, and did she find him attractive. After completing the CVSA test, Smith took, and passed, the required CHP written psychological exam. However, she claimed that during the exam, the CHP officer came into the room and tried to make casual conversation with her, which made her feel uncomfortable. As a result, Smith confided in a family friend and CHP officer about the alleged misconduct. The friend subsequently reported the alleged incident to his commander, who in turn notified the testing officer’s commander and a sergeant was assigned to investigate the matter. On June 14, 2011, the sergeant assigned to investigate the matter called Smith, and the two met in person the following day. The sergeant also provided Smith with a citizen’s complaint form, which Smith filled out and returned. On July 7, 2011, following an internal investigation regarding Smith’s allegations, the sergeant took several corrective steps, which included issuing the CHP officer a Memorandum of Direction, changing CVSA exam procedures, implementing protocols to track CVSA audio recordings, and requiring mandatory training on CVSA exams for background investigators. The investigating sergeant then called Smith on Aug. 30, 2011, and advised her that the investigation was complete, that Smith’s allegations were sustained, and that corrective action had been taken. As a result, during the call, Smith “agreed to not have the complaint filed,” and the investigating sergeant told Smith to contact her if she changed her mind. Smith claimed that she did, in fact, change her mind and called the sergeant back to request that the citizen’s complaint be filed. In January 2012, Smith contacted a CHP captain for advice because she had not received any further information about the citizen’s complaint. The captain told Smith that he had heard that Smith did not want to file a complaint and then provided Smith with contact information for three CHP Equal Employment Opportunity officers. One of the EEO officers then offered Smith the remedy of re-opening her previous citizen’s complaint, but Smith declined, explaining that she was dissatisfied with the outcome of her last attempt to file a citizen’s complaint and, instead, wanted to file a Formal Discrimination Complaint. At a later meeting, the EEO sergeant provided Smith a CHP brochure entitled, “Discrimination Complaint Process,” which contained information regarding remedies and time deadlines for employees and applicants who have encountered discrimination. The sergeant also gave Smith an EEO Formal Discrimination Complaint form, which she filled out and returned. As a result, two trained CHP EEO investigators investigated Smith’s complaint. On March 1, 2012, the EEO investigators interviewed Smith at her home. However, Smith claimed that she was “uncomfortable with the obvious disdain that one of the investigators displayed towards her” during the interview. The following month, on April 24, 2012, she was informed that she needed to retake the written psychological exam that she had previously passed because the results of the prior test had expired. As a result, Smith was sent a letter on June 6, 2012, which explained that she could retake the test at an expedited test time or at alternate locations, if she preferred. In April 2012, the EEO investigators briefed the acting chief on their findings. The CHP then sent Smith a Letter of Determination regarding the outcome of the EEO investigation on June 5, 2012. The letter advised her that the investigation found “inappropriate conduct pertaining to other departmental policy,” but that “there was insufficient evidence to establish that the officer’s conduct violated departmental discrimination policy.” As a result, Smith voluntarily terminated her candidacy. She claimed she walked away from the job because the CHP subjected her to retaliation for filing a complaint about the alleged sexual harassment incident, which dissuaded her from accepting CHP employment. On June 11, 2012, Smith filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation for opposing discrimination and engaging in the agency’s EEO complaint process. She also filed a similar complaint of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The federal and state agencies eventually issued the administrative determinations that allowed Smith to sue in federal court. Smith sued the State of California Department of Highway Patrol. She alleged that the actions of the defendant’s employees constituted retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Smith did not file a sexual harassment claim, and the trial addressed the only the claim of retaliation.) Smith claimed the CHP officer that administered the background-screening test (the CVSA test) asked her personal, intrusive, and inappropriate questions during the application process and then made her feel uncomfortable by attempting to make casual conversation with her during her psychological exam. Thus, she alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment. Smith claimed that despite the incident, she stuck with the cadet application process after the incident and eventually was recommended for hire by the CHP, but that she voluntarily terminated her candidacy because the CHP subjected her to retaliation for filing a complaint about the sexual harassment incident, which dissuaded her from accepting CHP employment. Smith claimed that when she met the investigating sergeant on June 14, 2011, the sergeant provided her with a citizen’s complaint form, but did not refer her to the CHP’s Equal Employment Opportunity process. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the citizen’s complaint form is used for situations involving the conduct of CHP officers and employees dealing with the public, and that sexual harassment claims by an applicant for employment should be referred to a CHP EEO investigator. Regardless, Smith filled out and returned the CHP citizen’s complaint form, and she was later advised that the investigation was complete and that corrective action had been taken. As a result, Smith agreed not to have the complaint filed and she was told to contact the investigating sergeant back if she changed her mind. However, Smith claimed that she did, in fact, change her mind and called the sergeant back to request that the citizen’s complaint be filed, but that on Sept. 12, 2011, Smith received a letter that stated that she had “related [that she] did not want to file a complaint.” Smith claimed that since the letter mischaracterized her wishes, she contacted the sergeant again to say that she wanted to continue with the complaint process. However, she alleged that after arriving home from vacation, she found a letter dated Oct. 6, 2011, which stated that the Applicant Investigation Unit had recently sent her an I-9 form for verifying citizenship or immigration status for employment and that she needed to return the form to the CHP’s Northern Division. She also alleged that the letter mentioned that the sergeant attempted to call her twice about the I-9 form and that if she wish to remain active in the background process for the position of cadet, she must contact Northern Division within 10 calendar days of the date on this letter to express her interest in continuing the process. However, Smith claimed that she never received the prior calls from the sergeant, so she had the form sent to her, completed it, and returned it to the CHP. Smith also claimed that, in January 2012, she contacted a CHP captain for advice because she had not received any further information about the citizen’s complaint and that the captain told her that he had heard that she did not want to file a complaint. After the captain provided Smith with contact information for CHP EEO officers, Smith filed out and returned an EEO Formal Discrimination Complaint form and was later interviewed by two trained EEO investigators at her home on March 1, 2012. Smith alleged that during the interview, she was “uncomfortable with the obvious disdain that one of the investigators displayed towards her.” Specifically, she contended that the investigator’s questions placed the onus on her to explain why the alleged misconduct was inappropriate and said, “If you are an appropriate candidate, you will be accepted” and “at this point there is no guarantee that you will reach the Academy.” In addition, Smith claimed that after the tape recorder was turned off, the investigator threatened her by saying that she must keep information relating to the complaint confidential in order to protect the officer’s privacy and to prevent a suit for slander. Smith claimed that following the interview, on April 24, 2012, she was informed that she needed to retake the written psychological exam even though she had previously passed it on Dec. 16, 2010. She also claimed that she received a Letter of Determination regarding the outcome of the EEO investigation on June 5, 2012, but that the letter did not assure her that the officer’s behavior had been addressed and remedied. Smith contended that as a result, she was dissuaded from accepting CHP employment and caused her to file complaints with the EEOC and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Defense counsel contended that when Smith met with the investigating sergeant, he provided Smith with a citizen’s complaint form, but that Smith told the sergeant that she did not want to file a complaint against the background officer. However, Smith disputed that claim. Defense counsel also contended that on July 7, 2011, following an internal investigation regarding Smith’s allegations, the CHP took several corrective steps that included issuing the background officer a Memorandum of Direction, changing CVSA exam procedures, implementing protocols to track CVSA audio recordings, and requiring mandatory training on CVSA exams for background investigators. Counsel contended that as a result, Smith “agreed to not have the complaint filed” and that Smith was told to contact the sergeant back if she changed her mind. However, defense counsel disputed that Smith called the sergeant back to request that the citizen’s complaint be filed and contended that the next contact with Smith that the sergeant had was when she left a voice mail for Smith on Sept. 1, 2011, during which she stated that Smith’s federal I-9 form was missing and that the CHP would send it to Smith to sign and return. Counsel also contended that the sergeant then called Smith again on Sept. 22, 2011, and left a message stating that the I-9 form had still not been received. Defense counsel acknowledged that Smith was sent a letter from the commander, dated Oct. 6, 2011, which stated that the Applicant Investigation Unit had recently sent Smith an I-9 form and that Smith needed to return the form to the CHP’s Northern Division. Counsel also acknowledged that the letter noted the sergeant’s calls about the I-9 form and advised Smith that “[i]f you wish to remain active in the background process for the position of Cadet, CHP, you must contact Northern Division within [10] calendar days of the date on this letter, to express your interest in continuing the process. Failure to respond within the [10] day time period will result in removal of your name from the certification list.” However, defense counsel argued that the letter was standard for when more documentation was needed from applicants. Counsel also argued that in order to conduct a full psychological evaluation, the subject must have a recent written exam and that many other candidates were asked to re-take the written exam because their results had also expired. Defense counsel noted the EEO investigators’ alleged conduct and the retaking of the exam were dismissed on summary judgment, and, thus, were not an issue at trial., Smith claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the alleged retaliation against her. She claimed that she suffers a loss of earnings as a result of the CHP’s dissuading her from accepting CHP employment. Thus, Smith sought recovery of emotional-distress damages, and recovery for her past and future wage loss.