In January 2017, plaintiff Anahi Ramirez, 44, an office technician at a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prison, engaged in sexual relations with Correctional Officer Luis "Tony" Serna, who worked at the same prison. Serna recorded a video of the encounter at Ramirez’s home and, unbeknownst to Ramirez, distributed the video to co-workers at the prison despite Ramirez not agreeing or consenting to its distribution. Consequently, the video continued to circulate, both at work and outside of work, to more prison employees. In March 2018, Ramirez learned of the video and complained to the prison about it. She claimed that she complained about being sexually harassed via the actions of Serna and other prison employees and their distribution of the video, but that the prison did not do anything about it. In August 2019, Ramirez resigned from her position. Three months after her resignation, in November 2019, the prison determined that the distribution of the video constituted sexual harassment. Ramirez sued her employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Serna; and other prison employees, Lieutenant Che White, Sergeant Chad Bala, Officer Roy Munoz, Officer Peter Paluck and Officer John Childers. Ramirez alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted sexual harassment, a failure to prevent harassment, gender discrimination, retaliation and a constructive discharge. Munoz and Childers were dismissed from the case on motions for summary judgment, and Paluck was voluntarily dismissed from the case after he passed away. The matter continued against the remaining defendants. Ramirez’s counsel contended that the conduct of Serna, White and Bala constituted sexual harassment in the workplace. Counsel also contended that supervisors engaged in the harassment and that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was aware of the harassment because of Ramirez’s complaint. Counsel asserted that instead of addressing the issue, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation retaliated against Ramirez and discriminated against her based on her gender by failing to immediately act to stop the harassment. The plaintiff’s workplace investigations expert testified about the best human resources practices and whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation complied with those practices in Ramirez’s case, which he found it did not. Defense counsel contended that the circulation of the video, which Ramirez’s complained about, was not workplace sexual harassment, and was not severe or pervasive. Counsel also contended that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation took immediate and appropriate response to Ramirez’s complaint., Ramirez claimed that she suffers from emotional distress as a result of the events and that she was ultimately forced to resigned from her position. She underwent counseling for her psychological condition, but she claimed she will continue to require counseling. Ramirez was ultimately able to find other work, but she claimed her she doesn’t earn as much as her previous job. Ramirez sought recovery for her past and future loss of wages, and past and future medical costs.