On Jan. 15, 2015, plaintiff Jay Brome, a police officer with the California Highway Patrol, went out of work on medical leave. He claimed that he went out on leave because of stress that was caused by the harassment he endured since 1996 as a result of being gay. He alleged that he was eventually forced to take disability retirement in 2016. Brome sued his employer, the California Highway Patrol, alleging that it was liable for its employees’ actions, which constituted sexual orientation discrimination. Brome also alleged that the CHP failed to prevent harassment, created a hostile work environment, and caused his constructive discharge. In addition, he alleged that the CHP’s actions all violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act. On March 20, 2018, Judge Michael Mattice dismissed the case, citing the statute of limitations.  Brome appealed the judgment. According to Brome’s counsel, the Court of Appeal considered evidence of harassment, discrimination and retaliation from Brome’s nearly 20-year career with the CHP. Specifically, it considered evidence that Brome was "the only officer denied backup assistance on a ‘daily basis’"; that the "use of homophobic, derogatory language was ‘ongoing’ and ‘very common’" at the Solano Office; and that by mid-January 2015, "because of his working conditions, Brome’s mental state had deteriorated to the point that he felt suicidal." (Id. at pp. 790-94, 799.) It also took note of evidence that the CHP "knowingly permitted the intolerable conditions" and that, in responding to Brome’s workers’ compensation claim, the CHP was "on notice of his potential discrimination claims." (Id at pp. 795, 802.) The Court of Appeal ultimately found in favor of Brome in regard to the application of the equitable tolling doctrine, the application of the continuing violation doctrine, and whether Brome was constructively discharged. (Brome v. California Highway Patrol, 44 Cal. App. 5th 786, 794, 798, 801 (2020).) Thus, it reversed the trial court judgment, and Brome’s case returned to the trial court during the COVID-19 pandemic. At trial, Brome alleged that he faced a hostile work environment throughout his career because of his sexual orientation. He claimed that he subjected to pervasive homophobic slurs and other derogatory comments, vandalism and defacement of his workspace and property, a pattern of fellow officers refusing to respond to his calls for backup in dangerous situations, and the consistent failure of CHP management to take adequate action to address the discrimination and harassment he faced. Brome alleged that the harassment began during his academy training and followed him from assignment to assignment, from the CHP’s San Francisco area office (where his career began in 1996) to other CHP area offices, first in Contra Costa and finally in Solano, where he worked from 2008 until the environment became so intolerable he was placed on medical stress leave on Jan. 15, 2015. Defense counsel filed unsuccessful motions to bifurcate the trial and to strike the matter in an attempt to narrow the scope of the case., Brome claimed he was forced to leave the job he loved due to severe and pervasive discrimination, harassment and retaliation during his 20-year, award-winning career employed by the CHP. He alleged that he underwent psychological counseling, but that the psychological toll of the CHP’s hostile work environment became so intolerable that his physician ordered him to take a medical stress leave on Jan. 15, 2015. He also alleged that he contemplated suicide due to the ill treatment he received at work. Brome was ultimately constructively discharged in 2016, when he was forced to take disability early retirement. Brome contended that he continues to undergo psychological counseling as a result of the events. Brome sought recovery for his past and future medical costs, past and future lost wages and decreased pension, and past and future pain and suffering. He also sought injunctive relief.