In 2001, plaintiff Martha Berndt, a female correctional officer with the California Department of Corrections, began to complain about being harassed by male inmates. However, she claimed her supervisors did nothing about it. Berndt, as well as 10 other current and former female corrections officers who worked at various prisons throughout California, sued the California Department of Corrections (CDCR) and their respective supervisors. The female corrections officers alleged that the defendants subjected them to sexual harassment and gender discrimination, creating a hostile work environment. They originally sued as a class, but in 2012, the judge denied the guards’ request to proceed as a class. Thereafter, several of the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement or voluntarily dismissed their claims. In addition, several of the individual defendants were either dismissed from the case or let out after being granted summary judgment. Thus, the matter ultimately continued with only Berndt’s claims against the CDCR and her immediate supervisor, Sergeant David Skerik. Berndt alleged that the CDCR and Skerik discriminated against her, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by failing to protect her from sexual harassment. Berndt claimed that the CDCR and Skerik failed to adequately address situations where inmates indecently exposed themselves. She claimed that her first complaint involved an inmate in 2001 and that she later complained of another inmate’s actions in 2001 and 2002. Specifically, Berndt alleged that on July 12, 2002, she was ordered by Skerik to place inmate Goldwire Jackson in a cell, in full view of the control booth even though Jackson was known to be a “notoriously abusive exhibitionist masturbator.” Berndt claimed that she made “strenuous objections” to the order, and gave an “explicit warning that the inmate would create an extremely hostile and dangerous environment if placed in front of the control booth,” but that Skerik insisted that Jackson be placed by the control booth anyway. Berndt claimed that as a result, incidents involving Jackson did occur, but that the CDCR and Skerik did nothing about her complaints. Defense counsel acknowledged that Berndt reported four incidents of indecent exposure during her employment, with three of the four incidents involving Jackson, a notorious inmate masturbator and all-around disturber. Berndt reported the first incident involving another inmate in 2001 and reported incidents involving Jackson in 2001 and 2002. However, defense counsel contended that despite reporting the Jackson incident in 2001, Berndt still bid to work at the Security Housing Unit, where Jackson was housed, rather than request to be transferred elsewhere as a remedy. Defense counsel argued that the CDCR took appropriate action on every occasion where Berndt reported an incident involving an inmate’s indecent exposure. Counsel contended that the CDCR counseled the inmates, took permissible disciplinary actions against them, and referred each incident to the local district attorney for prosecution. In addition, defense counsel argued that Skerik was not motivated by discriminatory animus and that Skerik’s decision to move Jackson by the control booth was so that they could keep a better eye on him and place more restrictions on Jackson if he “mess[ed] up.”, Berndt worked with the CDCR at Pelican Bay State Prison, mostly as a control booth officer, from May 1995 to July 2002. However, she claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the incidents in 2001 and 2002. Berndt formally retired in October 2003, after an incident where she ignored a direct order and refused to open a gate that would allow Jackson to be transferred back to his cell by the control booth after undergoing a medical exam. Berndt was subsequently relieved of duty and told that she could not be put back in her same job position because she was “in no state of mind to continue.” As a result, Berndt never returned to work. Thus, Berndt sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress and lost wages. The defense’s psychiatry and psychology experts opined that Berndt was exaggerating her symptoms and that Berndt’s alleged ongoing emotional distress was caused by the litigation, and not by her employment.