In 2010, female workers at the Bakersfield-based Braun Electric Co., which provides industrial electrical services for the oil and gas industry throughout California’s San Joaquin Valley, allegedly began to be subjected to a hostile work environment due to the actions of a male manager at Braun Electric’s Belridge location. In 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Braun Electric Co., alleging the company violated Title VIIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC claimed that a male manager at Braun Electric’s Belridge location continually made daily grotesque remarks of a sexual nature to female subordinates and made explicit sexual propositions on a continual basis. The EEOC alleged that the women were offended by the supervisor’s sexual conduct, telling him to stop, and that the sexual harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to create a hostile work environment. It claimed that Braun Electric’s management failed to adequately address the reports of harassment and that supervisors failed to report incidents that they witnessed. The EEOC further claimed that one female employee was forced to quit as a result of the ongoing hostile work environment. Defense counsel contended that before the female employee left due to the alleged hostile work environment, Braun Electric’s management repeatedly checked with her over many months to see if she had other concerns, but that no other concerns were reported by the employee. Counsel also contended that the employee declined opportunities to transfer to an office closer to her home. Defense counsel further contended that Braun Electric never received another complaint about the manager accused of sexual harassment until a second employee quit to accept a position with her parent’s company. Defense counsel asserted that upon receiving the second complaint, Braun Electric immediately terminated the manager., The EEOC claimed the subject female employees suffered emotional distress as a result of the alleged harassment. Thus, it sought recovery of compensatory damages on behalf of those female employees.