In October 2012, plaintiff Michele Coyle, chief counsel for the University of California, Riverside, was terminated from her position. Coyle was initially hired by the University of California, Riverside, in 2006. The University of California had 10 campuses, and Coyle was Riverside’s first resident campus counsel. Coyle claimed that she was hired specifically to deal with long-term issues of harassment, discrimination, and hostile work environments. She, along with other campus counsel, jointly reported to the university’s general counsel, Charles Robinson, and the chancellor of the campus, Timothy White. In 2009, Dallas Rabenstein had been appointed as interim executive vice chancellor, and was appointed to the permanent position of executive vice chancellor a year later. Prior to this, Coyle was allegedly promised a raise by the former provost of the campus. As the amount of the raise could not be approved unless it was done so by the governing board at the university, Robinson ultimately had to deny Coyle the raise. During her employment, Coyle had many campus clients and she provided legal advice to high ranking administrators on campus, including Rabenstein. However, in 2010, Coyle and Rabenstein had a dispute over a disciplinary matter in regard to a faculty member. In addition, Rabenstein was unhappy with Coyle’s counsel. In 2011, Coyle went through a five-year review process, which was done by an independent committee on campus. The review included a 360 interview, in which she would receive feedback from people she counseled. Some was good, but there was also negative feedback from key clients. White and Robinson subsequently met with Coyle to discuss the feedback, especially regarding the feedback that she could improve upon, but Coyle allegedly handed them a document attacking Robinson. In fall 2012, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs scheduled an audit to evaluate the university’s compliance with affirmative action regulations and equal opportunity compliance laws. The audit would also determine whether UC Riverside complied with its obligations under state and federal law to prohibit discrimination, retaliation, and harassment on the campus. However, Coyle was terminated from her position in October 2012, less than one week before the audit, while the analyses were still underway. Coyle sued the Regents of the University of California and Dallas L. Rabenstein (who was initially erroneously sued as Dallas “M.” Rabenstein). Coyle alleged that the university’s actions constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code, unlawful retaliation in violation of the the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and unlawful harassment in violation of FEHA. She also alleged that the university failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation. In addition, Coyle alleged that Rabenstein’s actions constituted gender harassment. Coyle also filed a separate suit against White, who is now chancellor of the California State University System, and Robinson, but Coyle ultimately dropped her cases against them. In addition, Coyle dropped her case against Rabenstein, who is now retired, one day before the trial started. Coyle claimed that Rabenstein was involved in discriminatory and harassing conduct since 2009. Specifically, Coyle claimed that male employees were given preference to promotions and salaries and that Rabenstein joked about not promoting women. Coyle also claimed that Rabenstein told a female administrator with children that women with young children should not be working and that those women would not be accommodated in the workplace. She further claimed she had consistently good reviews before Rabenstein was appointed to the permanent position of executive vice chancellor, but after the appointment, she began to receive some negative feedback. Thus, Coyle claimed that she took her concerns about Rabenstein’s behavior to White and Robinson, but that they failed to investigate her claims. She alleged that, instead, White and Robinson continued to foster and encourage an “old boys’ club” mentality by harassing and discriminating against women. In regard to the fall 2012 audit, Coyle alleged that Rabenstein refused to provide funding to prepare compensation data for the audit and that Rabenstein deliberately mischaracterized the data and directed staff members to do the same. Coyle further alleged that when she presented to White for funding while the analyses were underway, she was terminated from her position less than a week before the audit. Thus, Coyle claimed that she was terminated on the eve of a federal audit in an effort to conceal information from the auditors. In addition, she claimed that she was replaced with a younger, male lawyer with no experience in employment law. Defense counsel contended that Rabenstein was not discriminatory against women and even appointed the first woman dean. Counsel also contended that Rabenstein mentored a graduate student to have her serve as interim provost and that Rabenstein had nothing to do with Coyle’s reviews. In addition, counsel contended that Coyle never reported to Rabenstein and that Rabenstein was never Coyle’s supervisor. Defense counsel presented testimony from many female faculty members who explained how Rabenstein mentored and supported them, and claimed Rabenstein’s selection as provost was unanimously approved by the entire campus. Defense counsel maintained that Coyle was a high-level, university employee — part of the senior management group — who was an at-will employee who served at the pleasure of the two people to whom she reported, White and Robinson, and that Coyle was hired as an in-house attorney to handle a variety of matters. However, defense counsel argued that Coyle became upset about not being given the raise that she was allegedly promised and about the 2010 incident in which Rabenstein was unhappy with Coyle’s counsel. Defense counsel noted that no one disputed that Coyle did do a good job during the first few years that she worked for the university, but argued that things changed after Coyle was not given the raise. Counsel contended that Coyle never complained about Rabenstein until her review, after Rabenstein was appointed permanently, and that when Coyle handed them a document attacking Robinson during her review, White and Robinson made the decision at that point to end Coyle’s employment, as they felt the relationship was broken. In regard to the audit, defense counsel argued that the university worked for two years on the audit and that all information was turned over with no concern of adverse finding. Counsel also argued that five or six others were involved in putting together information for the audit and that none of them were terminated. In addition, defense counsel acknowledged that Coyle’s replacement was younger and a male, but argued that the replacement had significant experience in employment law and other areas of law before he came to the university. (Defense counsel noted that the judge did not allow the jury to hear about the audit’s finding that there was no disparity in pay between male and female employees.) Thus, defense counsel argued that Coyle was not a cooperative employee at the time of her termination., Coyle was terminated from her employment in October 2012, but she was paid until the end of the year. She claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of her termination and sought counseling a year after she was fired. Her treating counselor testified that Coyle suffered from three main psychological issues. Thus, Coyle sought recovery of past and future loss of earnings, including the loss of her health benefits, pension, and other benefits. She also sought recovery of non-economic damages for the alleged emotional hardship and humiliation she suffered as a result of her alleged retaliatory termination. Defense counsel noted that in 2012, about five months after Coyle was terminated, Coyle was having lunch at the Mission Inn and was bitten by a spider. Counsel also noted that Coyle sued Mission Inn for premises liability, claiming that Mission Inn failed to spray for pests and that the spider-bite injuries affected her ability to work as an attorney. Thus, defense counsel argued that although Coyle sought recovery for loss of future earnings in the subject lawsuit, Coyle claimed that her injuries noted in the Mission Inn lawsuit prevented her from working as an attorney. Defense counsel argued that although Coyle claimed her emotional distress was due to her termination from the University of California, Riverside, Coyle’s psychological condition was really due to the loss of her adult son and emotional distress over the alleged spider bite at Mission Inn.