On Oct. 20, 2016, plaintiff Domeka Harrison, 36, a special education instructional assistant at Lakewood High School, was allegedly sexually attacked by one of her special-needs students. Harrison began working with severe special needs students in a specialized program at the Lakewood High School campus on Jan. 1, 2016. She claimed that she was the victim of several “sexual attacks,” and “sexually violent harassment, assault and battery” at the hands of one of her special-needs students. After an alleged incident on Oct. 20, 2016, Harrison demanded that the student be removed from the campus, but the school refused. As a result, Harrison did not return to work. Harrison sued for her employer, the Long Beach Unified School District, alleging that the school district’s actions constituted violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. She further alleged that she was subjected to sexual and gender discrimination; sexual and gender harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940(j)(1); retaliation; and failure to prevent sexual and gender harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation. A key issue was having the jury see and observe the special-needs student. Because the student was non-verbal and low-functioning, the court granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to preclude the student from testifying at trial but permitted the student’s videotaped deposition to be used as demonstrative evidence. The court also denied plaintiff’s counsel’s motion in limine to preclude opinions regarding the student’s disabilities and cognitive level. Plaintiff’s counsel had maintained that whatever the student “intended” was not at issue under the law, but the court noted a California Central District Court ruling that had applied the reasoning from a federal case in Delaware to deny a Title VII harassment claim based on the alleged conduct by a student. The court noted that while intent of the harasser was not an element, the maturity and ability of the alleged harasser should be considered by the fact-finder as it goes to whether a reasonable woman in the same circumstances would have found the alleged conduct hostile or abusive. As a result, the court applied the reasoning from Mongelli v. Red Clay Consolidate School District Board of Education, 491 F.Supp.2d 467, 471-473 (D.Del. 2007), holding that the plaintiff-teacher accusing a special-education student of sexual harassment could not establish objective sexual harassment, and Kilroy v. Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2016, No. CV 13-6373 DMG (FFM)) 2016 WL 5662042, at *10, report and recommendation adopted (C.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2016, No. CV 13-6373 DMG (FFM)) 2016 WL 5661862. In addition, the court noted that Harrison’s case was that “Lyle” case for special education (referring to Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal. 4th 264 [2006]). Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Harrison’s job was so unique that she was permitted under both the California Education Code and the school district’s policy to use physical force to restrain special-needs students that became physically abusive or assaultive, and that her job description specifically called attention to that requirement. Counsel contended that, despite the fact that it was Harrison’s job to protect the students from themselves, Harrison claimed that she was the victim of “numerous,” repeated “sexual attacks,” and “sexually violent harassment, assault, and battery” at the hands of one of an adult, male, special needs student between Jan. 1, 2016 and Oct. 20, 2016. Counsel further claimed that despite Harrison’s request to have the assailant removed from the campus, the school district refused. Defense counsel disputed Harrison’s allegations, and noted that while the alleged harasser was as an “adult,” the student was only a 5-foot, 83-pound, special-needs student with severe disabilities and has the mental capacity of a toddler. Counsel also contended that Harrison initially claimed that her earring was knocked out during the final incident, but later changed her allegations to be that the student grabbed her breast. Defense counsel further contended that the school district made numerous requests for a meeting with Harrison between October 2016 through April 2017, but Harrison refused to return to campus or the school district’s main officers to meet with school district personnel to discuss relocating her to a new school site and/or position. Counsel maintained that, instead, Harrison demanded that the student be removed from the campus, but the school district could not do so pursuant to state and federal laws protecting the placement of students with disabilities., Harrison sought injunctive relief. She testified that she did not seek counseling, nor would she need to attend counseling, as a result of the alleged assault and harassment because she knew the problem was with working with the special-needs student and that she believed that his removal from campus would resolve the issue. Per an agreement between the parties, no experts were called by either side to testify at trial.