In March 2013, plaintiff Alisa Drakodaidis, a deputy chief executive officer in her 40s, was fired from her job with the county of Orange. Drakodaidis was previously recruited by Orange County CEO Tom Mauk to apply for the deputy CEO post, which oversaw five departments, in 2007. As a result, Drakodaidis became among those who supervised former Public Works Executive Manager Carlos Bustamante, who was accused of sexual harassment, groping women and exposing himself in his county office. The Bustamante incidents allegedly occurred over an eight-year period, and the first complaint against him was called into an anonymous fraud hotline in March 2011. Bustamante was placed on administrative leave in September 2011, and he was arrested in July 2012. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 365 days in jail in January 2016. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender for his alleged sexual misconduct involving five women who worked in the public works department. During that time, a survey of the Public Works Department was published and it allegedly revealed that Drakodaidis was detrimental to progress in the department. Also during that time, Mauk, who supervised Drakodaidis, changed Drakodaidis’ duties and moved her from the department. After Bustamante’s arrest, his immediate supervisor with the county, Public Works Director Jess Carbajal, whom Drakodaidis previously supervised, was fired on July 9, 2012. That same week that Carbajal was fired, Drakodaidis went out on medical leave due to alleged stress. In addition, Mauk, who supervised Drakodaidis, resigned on July 26, 2012. Drakodaidis claimed that she intended to return to work on Sept. 21, 2012, but that she was put on administrative leave instead. She was fired in March 2013. Drakodaidis sued the county of Orange, alleging wrongful termination due to gender and/or whistleblowing. Drakodaidis claimed that during the course of her employment, she complained about the county’s hiring procedures being circumvented, about Equal Employment Opportunity complaints not being properly investigated, and about county Supervisor Pat Bates being motivated to propose changes to the county sex offender ordinance to allegedly benefit the son of a friend. However, she claimed that at some point, Mauk changed her duties and moved her from the department allegedly because of complaints about working with her. Specifically, she claimed that her job duties were changed and she was moved from the department because high-level male managers in the public works department did not like being supervised by a woman. Drakodaidis further claimed that the survey of the Public Works Department that was published was biased and retaliatory for her activities in complaining about discrimination and harassment. She claimed that, as there were more than 1,000 employees in the department, the survey could easily reach the media and that as a result, the survey was career ending for her. In addition, Drakodaidis alleged that in July 2012, the same week that Carbajal was fired, she went on stress-related medical leave, mainly due to retaliation and/or alleged retaliation from the Board of Supervisors and the District Attorney’s Office, but that she intended to return to work in September 2012. However, she claimed that, instead, she was put on administrative leave and ultimately fired in March 2013. Defense counsel contended that after Mauk’s resignation, the then interim-CEO, Bob Franz, terminated Drakodaidis from her at-will position because her management style was disruptive to county operations. Counsel argued that rather than accept any responsibility for her actions, Drakodaidis, instead, claimed retaliation and discrimination, and attempted to portray herself as a whistleblower. However, counsel noted that a county investigation determined that Drakodaidis’ complaints had no merit. According to defense counsel, plaintiff’s counsel attempted to weave hot button topics of today, such as the #MeToo movement, into his arguments to hold Drakodaidis out to be a champion for such causes. However, defense counsel asserted that Drakodaidis was terminated for a host of legitimate reasons, including her negative impact on county operations and on the CEO’s office’s ability to work effectively with the Board of Supervisors. Defense counsel further asserted that Drakodaidis was the third executive to leave the county after a series of botched investigations into sexual harassment complaints against Bustamante, in that Drakodaidis was terminated after Bustamante’s immediate supervisor, Carbajal, was fired and Drakodaidis’ supervisor, Mauk, resigned under pressure., Drakodaidis claimed that she applied for 100 some jobs in her field, but couldn’t get work as a result of the subject termination. She is now working in real estate and earns much less than she did when she had her county job, in which she had an $185,000 salary and which her income with benefits totaled $300,000 yearly. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Drakodaidis’ lost earnings totaled $3.75 million, which was undisputed, as a result of the subject termination. Drakodaidis claimed that she suffered from emotional distress as a result of her termination and that as a result, she suffered from anxiety and depression. Thus, she sought recovery of $1 million in emotional distress damages on top of her loss of income and pension.