On July 2, 2009, plaintiff Rachel Elizondo, 54, an administrative assistant, was asked by her boss, Senior Environmental Planner Scott Guidi, to retrieve some information from his computer at the California Department of Transportation’s southeast Stockton facility while he was out of the office. Elizondo claimed that while she was on Guidi’s computer, she found what appeared to be pornographic material. She immediately reported it to a Caltrans manager and asked management to keep her report confidential. Caltrans subsequently conducted investigations and discovered a porn-exchange ring at the facility, which has a staff of around 360. However, Elizondo claimed that Caltrans management failed to protect her anonymity. She alleged that as a result, she was subjected to hostility from Guidi and others that were involved in the distribution of the pornographic material, as well as by co-workers. Elizondo eventually retired in 2014, when she was 59. Elizondo sued the California Department of Transportation. She alleged that Caltrans’ actions constituted retaliation and creation of a hostile work environment in violation of the Labor Code and California Whistleblower Protection Act. Elizondo claimed that instead of being kept anonymous, per her request, Caltrans spotlighted her name during the California Highway Patrol’s investigation into the inappropriate conduct. She alleged that as a result, she was retaliated against for reporting the pornographic material. Specifically, she claimed that she was excluded from a hiring process and denied a promotion that she deserved and that, instead, the position was given to a less qualified employee. Elizondo also claimed that co-workers gave her glaring looks, her friends were retaliated against, one of her tires was slashed on her vehicle, she was downgraded in a performance review, and she was told that she would not be promoted. Defense counsel denied that Elizondo was retaliated against., Elizondo claimed that she suffers from emotional distress as a result of the incidents. The plaintiff’s psychiatry expert testified about the emotional damage Elizondo allegedly suffered, and opined that Elizondo had 23 percent whole-person impairment. Thus, Elizondo sought recovery of $673,007 in economic losses due to the denial of a promotion, loss of salary and benefits, and emotional distress.