In March 2006, plaintiff Tracy Scudder, 34, began working as a maintenance employee for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). He claimed that since the time he started working for Caltrans, his co-workers engaged in racial discrimination and racial harassment against him by use of racially offensive language and conduct. He also claimed when he complained about the hostile work environment, his supervisors retaliated against him by denying him a raise and giving him undesirable assignments. In addition, Scudder claimed that Caltrans failed to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Thus, Scudder continued to be assigned to work with his alleged harassers until 2015, when Caltrans transferred him to a different work crew. Scudder sued the People of the State of California, acting through Caltrans (and initially erroneously sued as the State of California Department of Transportation), and his alleged supervisors, Victor Flores and Victor Garcia. Scudder ultimately dismissed Flores and Garcia. Thus, the matter continued against the People only. Scudder claimed that soon after he began his employment, his co-workers belittled him for listening to “jungle music,” shouted orders in his face, and called him “boy.” He also claimed that at one point, a mock noose was hung in front of him. Scudder further claimed that in 2009, Caltrans wrote up a co-worker for using the “N-word” on one occasion and for allegedly shoving him on a separate occasion. However, Scudder alleged that no further discipline occurred and that Caltrans continued to assign him to work alongside the same individuals. In addition, he claimed that, during his employment, he complained to multiple supervisors, his union, and Caltrans’ internal Discrimination Complaint Investigation Unit, but nothing further was done and that during the pendency of his case, his alleged harassers were promoted. Caltrans denied Scudder’s claims of harassment, discrimination and retaliation. It contended that it had issued a written warning to Scudder’s co-worker for one instance of using a variation of the N-word and that the word was never repeated by the co-worker. Defense counsel contended that during Caltrans’ internal investigations, and at trial, no witnesses could corroborate Scudder’s claims having occurred during the period of 2006 to 2015, other than an isolated, single use of a variation of the N-word, a separate bumping incident, and one verbal confrontation over a dropped driver’s license. At trial, one witness testified that he had observed Scudder being spoken to in a belittling manner by a co-worker, but no witnesses could corroborate the use of any specific pejorative term, such as “boy.” Defense counsel also contended that Scudder never missed a promotion that he applied for and that Scudder’s supervisors provided additional training to facilitate promotion and pay increases. Counsel further contended that the only time Scudder was denied a pay increase was temporarily in 2014, by his supervisor, who is also black, in response to documented failures to follow his supervisor’s instructions, failure to follow Caltrans’ policy, and Scudder’s third accident in a state vehicle. In addition, defense counsel contended that in 2015, a seasonal employee wrote a letter to Scudder’s supervisor expressing concern for Scudder’s unsafe work practices., Scudder, who was 46 at the time of trial, did not claim he had any economic damages, but, rather, claimed he suffered emotional distress, anxiety, depression and difficulty sleeping as a result of his treatment at Caltrans. Defense counsel noted that the plaintiff’s expert psychologist administered a standardized test to Scudder, but disregarded the resulting primary diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia as inaccurate and, instead, opined that Scudder had mild to moderate anxiety and depression. The defense’s neuropsychology expert administered a standardized test to Scudder that allegedly resulted in a score consistent with malingering. Both experts noted that Scudder had witnessed traumatic events in the past, including witnessing two shooting deaths. Defense counsel contended that Scudder’s treating physicians noted that around the time Scudder initiated litigation, he visited his medical provider after having diagnosed himself with depression and anxiety after taking a self-administered questionnaire. Counsel also noted that Scudder refused antidepressant medication.