Between October 2008 and late December 2008, plaintiff Kimberli Hirst, 51, a phlebotomist for American Forensic Nursing, worked in a locked room at the Oceanside Police Department or in the Vista jail. American Forensic Nursing was a company that provided phlebotomy services to local law enforcement agencies pursuant to a contract it had with the county of San Diego. Hirst claimed that during the time she worked at the Oceanside Police Department or Vista jail, she was subjected to approximately five sexually inappropriate comments from Police Officer Gilbert Garcia, who worked for the city of Oceanside. As a result, she complained to her supervisor at American Forensic Nursing, but a private security guard with the city of Oceanside overheard the conversation. An internal investigation was subsequently launched after city officials learned of Hirst’s complaint, and on Oct. 1, 2009, Garcia was placed on administrative leave. Garcia was ultimately terminated on Nov. 11, 2009. Hirst sued Garcia, the city of Oceanside and the Oceanside Police Department. Hirst alleged that Garcia’s actions constituted sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. She also alleged that the city and police department failed to take prompt reasonable action to prevent the sexual harassment and/or were vicariously liable for Garcia’s actions. The court clarified to the jury that the Oceanside Police Department is a subsidiary of the city of Oceanside, and that only the city (and Garcia) was a party to the suit. Hirst claimed that although she worked for American Forensic Nursing and Garcia worked for the city of Oceanside, Garcia acted as one of her supervisors while she worked at the Oceanside Police Department. She also claimed that Garcia made several sexually inappropriate comments to her and that even after the city heard about the harassment, she was subjected to further harassment and retaliation until the investigation was completed in August 2009. Thus, she claimed that the city failed to timely prevent further harassment and retaliation upon hearing her complaint. Garcia conceded that he made inappropriate comments to Hirst, but claimed that the sexual banter was consensual. However, he ultimately settled with Hirst on the second day of trial and, therefore, did not defend himself during the remainder of the trial. Counsel for the city denied that Garcia was Hirst’s supervisor. Counsel also contended that neither Hirst nor anyone from American Forensic Nursing wanted to tell the city about the alleged comments, and that the City learned of the allegations from an outside contractor who overheard Hirst and her American Forensic Nursing supervisor talking about wanting to keep the alleged comments a secret from the city. Counsel asserted that after the private security guard informed the city about the alleged comments, the city immediately took prompt remedial action. The city claimed that as a result of learning of the alleged comments, it immediately spoke to Garcia and informed him to stay away from all blood technicians. It also claimed that it spoke to Hirst, but that she refused to file any kind of a formal complaint. Thus, counsel for the city argued that, effective the day the city was informed about Garcia’s alleged comments, further sexually inappropriate comments were never again made to Hirst. Counsel for the city noted that in the city’s investigation, it learned that Garcia admitted to making an inappropriate comment from one to possibly four times; that Garcia felt he and Hirst had a consensual sexually flirtatious relationship; that Hirst initiated the comments; and that the comments had stopped several months earlier. Although, Garcia claimed the comments were made mutually and consensually, the city terminated him at the conclusion of the investigation due to the city’s zero tolerance, sexual-harassment prevention policy and other city policy violations. The City never investigated Hirst’s involvement because she was not a city employee and, instead, simply disciplined its own officer, Garcia. Counsel for the city argued that although Hirst claimed during trial that the city’s internal affairs investigation of four months “took too long,” the undisputed testimony showed that Hirst never received any sexually harassing comments after the city was initially notified about Garcia’s alleged comments. In addition, the city’s counsel argued that plaintiff’s counsel erroneously argued during closing that the city was responsible for Garcia’s conduct simply because he was on duty at the time the comments were allegedly made and, further, erroneously argued that Garcia retaliated against her, although no cause of action for retaliation was on the verdict form., In 2010, Hirst was laid off from her position with American Forensic Nursing when it lost its contract with the city of Oceanside. Since then, she worked part-time jobs, but no longer wants to work with blood draws or law enforcement, in any capacity. Hirst presented no medical expenses, no lost earnings and no special damages. However, she claimed that the city “re-injured” her when the internal affairs sergeant requested that she testify at Garcia’s arbitration, challenging his termination from city employment, and again when she gave a deposition during her civil trial. Hirst alleged that as a result, she sought psychological treatment on three occasions, but the plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist testified that those three treatments were successful and no further psychological intervention was required. Thus, Hirst claimed emotional distress and sought recovery of $3 million in damages primarily related to litigation-related events. The city’s counsel asserted that after Garcia was terminated, Hirst voluntarily chose to continue to draw blood at the city of Oceanside, as well as continue to work with American Forensic Nursing, until her company lost the contract with the county. Counsel noted that the city was not a party to that contract and had no control over it, American Forensic Nursing, or Hirst. The city’s counsel argued that the plaintiff’s psychiatrist initially stated, during the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, that Hirst did not have any diagnosable disorder related to her contact with the city, and that she did not need any medication or future treatment. In addition, the city’s counsel argued that no medical care provider ever told Hirst that she could not work as a blood technician or in any other capacity.