In May 2013, plaintiff Linda Allstot, a police officer in her 40s who was with the Los Angeles Police Department for 18 years, accused a lieutenant of repeatedly leering at her body, making unwanted sexual or demeaning comments and making other sexual advances. The lieutenant was Allstot’s superior, working as an adjutant to the deputy chief in charge of the Professional Standards Bureau, where they worked. Allstot claimed that after she refused his advances and began avoiding him, the lieutenant and others began retaliating against her by having the Internal Affairs Special Operations Division — a group of undercover police officers — put surveillance on her in August 2015, and by removing her from her position and placing her in a position with less responsibility in February 2016. She also claimed that when she complained about the lieutenant’s behavior to the deputy chief in charge of the bureau, nothing was done. The lieutenant retired from the LAPD in March 2018. Allstot sued the lieutenant’s employer, the city of Los Angeles. She alleged that the lieutenant’s actions created a hostile work environment and constituted quid pro quo harassment, retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and whistleblower retaliation. The court granted nonsuit on Allstot’s whistleblower retaliation claim. Allstot claimed that she was made uncomfortable at work through the behavior and actions of the lieutenant. She also claimed that after she hurt her back in August 2015, a city physician put her off of work in order to obtain an MRI that same day and told her to ask for the week off. However, she claimed that after she asked for the time off, the lieutenant was behind the order to have the Internal Affairs Special Operations Division put surveillance on her, whereby five surveillance vehicles with 10 sergeants, two in each vehicle, followed her in the hope of catching her doing something that she was not supposed to do. Allstot further claimed that the lieutenant invited her on vacations to Cabo San Lucas and Lake Havasu, and would make promises that she would get an investigative position or be put in an investigative position with the Internal Affairs Special Operations Division, the same division that surveilled her, but that when she refused his invitations, she never got any of the positions. Allstot contended that, instead, in February 2016, her job title as a sick and injured on-duty coordinator, which she held since 2007, was changed, she was given less responsibility and work, and she was relegated to “pushing paper.” Defense counsel denied there was any sexual harassment, as the lieutenant denied making any inappropriate comments, and there were no witnesses or any documents related to the alleged conduct. Counsel asserted that the lieutenant’s invitations were made once and were also made to other employees, both male and female. Defense counsel also denied that the lieutenant had anything to do with the surveillance, as the lieutenant had no authority to initiate surveillances. Counsel further asserted that the lieutenant did not have direct reports, did not assign work/cases, and did not give/select promotional positions or make recommendations. In addition, defense counsel asserted that Allstot never reported any untoward conduct and that the deputy chief denied Allstot made any such complaints about the lieutenant’s behavior. Defense counsel contended that Allstot was given a notice to correct when she failed to note her start of work accurately and that Allstot only complained of alleged harassment only after being served with the notice in April 2015. Counsel also contended that Allstot’s job title was renamed per a department-wide administrative directive and that Allstot was surveilled after she claimed she injured herself hugging Special Olympians. Specifically, defense counsel asserted that Allstot was surveilled for suspicion of workers’ compensation fraud, given the mechanism of her as well as the extent of her , as she claimed she injured her back by hugging Special Olympians. Defense counsel further contended that Allstot had a history of workers’ compensation claims, working light duty and regular duty at her convenience, and requesting what limited job duties she had to be reassigned. Thus, counsel asserted that Allstot felt that she was privileged and complained about things when they did not suit her., Allstot has been a police officer for 18 years. She contended the behavior she was subjected to caused her extreme discomfort, humiliation and disgust. She claimed that suffered from emotional distress, as she felt she was constantly looking over shoulder, wondering if she will be terminated or set up for termination. She also claimed she was constantly worried about her duties being taken away and that she was ostracized at the office and lost all of her friends, except for one. Defense counsel noted that Allstot did not seek counseling or mental health treatment of any kind and that Allstot was not prescribed any medications for her alleged emotional . In response, plaintiff’s counsel contended that due to the fear of termination, Allstot has not sought any counseling, as that could allegedly be used as a basis to terminate her, saying she was unfit for duty or unstable. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that Allstot has dealt with her condition and will stay working.