In 2011, plaintiff Angela Walton, a lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, was under the supervision of Commander Joseph Fennell. Walton alleged that during that time, Fennell harassed, stalked, threatened, and retaliated against her because she refused his sexual advances. She claimed Fennell hampered her career and subjected her to “freeway therapy.” She also claimed that Fennell required sexual conduct as a condition of her employment and engaged in a pattern of unwanted sexual conduct towards her. Walton alleged that she did not welcome any sexual interactions with Fennell. She also alleged that in November 2011, she was transferred to a location that was farther away for her to travel and that she was only assigned to that location because she refused Fennell’s advances. Walton sued Fennell and Fennell’s employer, the county of Los Angeles, which operated the Sheriff’s Department. Walton alleged that Fennell’s actions constituted sexual harassment and that county’s failure to address the situation constituted sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and retaliation. Fennell admitted that he contemplated engaging in a relationship with Walton, but only after she repeatedly teased and flirted with him, engaged in sexual banter, and shared her sexual exploits with him. According to Fennell, all of the interactions were consensual, welcomed and invited. Thus, he claimed that Walton manipulated him and set him up because she wanted him to help her with her career prospects and significant financial difficulties. Fennell denied any involvement in Walton’s assignment following her promotion to lieutenant. He further claimed that when Walton realized that he was not going to help her financially and that he would not be able to secure her an assignment that she wanted within the department, Walton filed the instant lawsuit. The county asserted that it has multiple procedures in place to provide training to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace. It also asserted that it demands that its employees, many of whom are mandatory reporters, to report any misconduct observed at the workplace. All employees are advised of their rights and responsibilities with respect to being subjected to, or witnessing, any conduct in violation of county policies. Thus, the county contended that Walton was aware of, and failed to utilize, any such options and that this was further proof that Walton was not a victim of any harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, and that, rather, she filed the lawsuit for monetary gain., Walton claimed that the alleged sexual advances caused her a great deal of stress. She also testified at trial that because of the November 2011 assignment to a location that resulted in a long commute for her, she was unable to spend as much time with her ill father. Thus, Walton sought recovery of emotional distress damages as to both defendants, and sought punitive damages against Fennell. Defense counsel noted that no expert or treating physician was called by plaintiff’s counsel to testify regarding Walton’s alleged emotional distress. The defense’s expert forensic psychiatrist testified that, based on an interview conducted and the results of psychological testing, Walton presented no evidence of any emotional distress. The expert further testified that the only interesting results showed that Walton had elevated results for paranoia and a tendency to be suspicious. He explained that a person with these results saw malice where there was none, or maybe only a harmless mistake.