In 2007, intervening-plaintiff Maribel Ochoa, a 17-year-old farm worker, was allegedly sexually harassed by a male co-worker at Giumarra Vineyards’ Edison-based facility. The alleged harassment included sexual advances, sexually inappropriate touching, and abusive and offensive comments of a sexual nature. Three other farm workers, intervening-plaintiffs Delfina Ochoa, Jose Ochoa and Guadalupe Martinez, claimed that they witnessed the sexual harassment complained to management officials. The next day, July 19, 2007, the teenager and the three other workers were terminated from their employment. They claimed the termination was in retaliation for making the sexual harassment complaints. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, acting on behalf of the indigenous farm workers, sued Giumarra Vineyards Corp., one of the largest growers of table grapes in the United States. Maribel Ochoa Delfina Ochoa, Jose Ochoa and Guadalupe Martinez then joined the suit as intervening plaintiffs. They alleged that Giumarra Vineyards terminated them in retaliation for their opposition to the hostile work environment due to the unlawful sexual harassment in their workplace. Giumarra Vineyards denied that Maribel Ochoa was in any way sexually harassed or subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex. It also denied that Maribel Ochoa, Delfina Ochoa, Jose Ochoa or Guadalupe Martinez complained to anyone at the facility regarding any alleged sexual harassment, and denied that they were in any way retaliated against. Instead, Giumarra Vineyards claimed that Maribel Ochoa, Delfina Ochoa, Jose Ochoa and Guadalupe Martinez each voluntarily quit their employment at the company., The EEOC sought recovery of economic damages suffered by Maribel Ochoa, Delfina Ochoa, Jose Ochoa and Guadalupe Martinez. Specifically, it sought recovery of the lost wages they suffered as a direct result of the retaliatory discharge in July 2007. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that during this time, the farm workers were earning approximately $7.50 to $7.75 per hour. As such, the EEOC sought the difference in wages between what the workers earned at the time of their termination and they would have earned if they had not been fired. The EEOC also sought recovery of prejudgment interest on the workers’ economic losses, calculated at the relevant IRS interest rate for underpayment of taxes and compounded quarterly, as well as a positive letter of reference for potential future employers. The EEOC also sought recovery of compensatory damages for the emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, frustration and inconvenience the four identified workers suffered as a direct result of the defendant’s alleged discriminatory conduct. It further sought recovery of punitive damages due to the defendant’s malice and reckless indifference toward the identified workers’ federally protected rights, and to deter any such future unlawful conduct. Thus, the EEOC sought recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in the combined maximum amount that was permitted by federal statute ($300,000.00 plus economic damages). In addition, the EEOC sought injunctive and equitable relief to ensure Giumarra Vineyards’ future compliance with Title VII including, but not limited to, the implementation and/or revision of its anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies, the hiring of a professional EEOC consultant, a notice posted in the workplace, periodic monitoring reports to the EEOC, and mandatory training for management and employees regarding their rights and responsibilities under Title VII. Defense counsel contended that the EEOC, and the intervening-plaintiffs, were not entitled to damages due to there being no retaliation and due to the intervening-plaintiffs voluntarily quitting their jobs. Counsel also contended that the EEOC was not entitled to injunctive or equitable relief.