On July 16, 2010, plaintiff Luis Sandoval, 40, a part-time customer service representative, also known as a “red shirt”, at a Chula Vista AutoZone store, yelled at his supervisor. Sandoval claimed that his supervisor, Daniel Borquez, came up behind him and grabbed his buttocks, causing him to exclaim, “What the hell?” He claimed that when Borquez and another assistant manager laughed at him for being upset, he told them that he would be reporting the incident. However, AutoZone ultimately terminated Sandoval on July 28, 2010, less than two weeks after Sandoval filed a complaint. Sandoval sued AutoZone Inc. and Borquez. Sandoval alleged that Borquez unlawfully harassed him and that AutoZone wrongfully terminated him in retaliation for making a complaint against Borquez. Borquez was ultimately dismissed from the case, and the matter proceeded to trial on the retaliation claim against AutoZone only. Sandoval claimed that during his four-month employment with AutoZone, he was unlawfully harassed by Borquez, who verbally abused him, culminating in a full-handed grabbing of his buttocks on July 16, 2010. He claimed that, just before leaving the store, he told the managers that laughed at him that he would be reporting the incident. He also claimed that after he left the store, he told his parents about what had happened and then wrote a letter to upper management about the incident. Sandoval also claimed that he called and left a message about the incident with his store manager and district manager. He contended that as a result, District Manager Kent McFall called him back the next day to tell him that he should not report to work as scheduled and that the company would call him when it was time to return. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that AutoZone’s initial reaction to Sandoval’s complaint was to recommend termination for violating an attendance policy due to Sandoval’s failure to return to work on the day Sandoval was told to stay home. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the company later decided to hold off on terminating Sandoval so that it could conduct a sham investigation. Sandoval claimed that after he had been off of work for a week, he was bought into a different store for an interrogation by the District Manager, McFall, and the Regional Human Resources Manager, Staci Saucier, who was on the phone. He alleged that at the time, he believed the meeting was to be about his complaints regarding Borquez grabbing his buttocks, but that, unbeknownst to him, the meeting and investigation was about a complaint that management allegedly received from Borquez, the man who grabbed his buttocks. Sandoval claimed that he was never informed of Borquez’s allegation and that when he tried to explain the incident where Borquez grabbed his buttocks, Saucier persisted in trying to make him claim that the unwanted touching was just a “love tap” or was “like the sports people do.” In addition, Sandoval claimed that was never told that he was being investigated for possible termination and that Saucier manipulated him into discussing an incident where there was yelling about a part being misplaced. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after Saucier interviewed Sandoval and the managers involved in the unlawful harassment that took place against Sandoval at the AutoZone store, she recommended that Sandoval be terminated for insubordination. However, counsel contended that management never tried to obtain the store’s surveillance video from date of the butt-grabbing incident, even though the cameras in that store would have recorded the incident. Thus, counsel contended that Sandoval never worked another day for AutoZone after making the complaint about unlawful harassement at an AutoZone store. (Plaintiff’s counsel noted that those in charge were the same District Manager and Regional Manager involved in Juarez v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., a gender/pregnancy discrimination, harassment and retaliation lawsuit in which Juarez was awarded over $185 million.) AutoZone’s District Manager, McFall, testified that the company conducted a thorough investigation of Sandoval’s complaint, despite not obtaining the available surveillance video. He alleged that the managers working on the night that Sandoval’s buttocks was allegedly grabbed claimed that there was no such grab and that Sandoval had “snapped” and began cursing at them in front of customers. Thus, he claimed that Sandoval was appropriately terminated for insubordination., Sandoval was terminated from his position in July 2010. He claimed he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for making a protected complaint about unlawful harassment in the workplace after working for the AutoZone store for only four months. He also claimed he suffered emotional distress as a result of his treatment and termination. Thus, Sandoval sought recovery of damages for his past economic loss and emotional distress.