In August 2010, plaintiff Nicole Willinsky, 17, was hired by Victorville Speedwash, a car wash facility in Victorville. Nicole claimed that when she met the manager, Miguel Iglesias, he told her she had “pretty eyes.” She claimed that it made her feel uncomfortable, but that Iglesias continued to make comments about her eyes, hair and body on an almost daily basis. In addition, she claimed that Iglesias would also hug her, put his arm around her waist, and touch her hair. Nicole claimed that one time in late August, Iglesias implied that he would help her get changed into her work uniform. She claimed that Iglesias’ actions towards her, including the changing comment and other incidents, caused her to stop coming into work in September 2010. Nicole sued Iglesias, Victorville Speedwash Inc., and Victorville Speedwash Property LLC. Nicole alleged that Iglesias’ actions constituted unlawful harassment based on sex in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and that Victorville Speedwash Inc. and Victorville Speedwash Property LLC failed to prevent the harassment. In addition, she alleged that the defendants’ actions or inaction constituted an intentional infliction emotional distress, and caused her to be constructively discharged or wrongfully terminated. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. Nicole contended that Iglesias’ actions, which included his comments about her physical appearance, his inappropriate touching, and the incident where he implied he would help her get changed, all constituted sexual harassment in the workplace. She also contended that Victorville Speedwash, as Iglesias’ employer, failed to prevent the harassment, which ultimately led to her constructive discharge. Nicole claimed that she went with her parents to meet the owners of Victorville Speedwash, Faramarz Simab and Pedram Fararooy, who were surprised by Iglesias’ alleged actions. She alleged that the owners then said they would look into it and wanted her to return to work, but that she refused because she could no longer work in the same facility as Iglesias. After plaintiff’s counsel rested, the court granted defense counsel’s motion for judgment as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Iglesias denied making the statements that Nicole attributed to him or ever touching Nicole in any manner. However, he claimed that he did offer to hold Nicole’s personal belongings when she went to change into her work uniform, but that he did not offer to help her change. Victorville Speedwash contended that if Iglesias did make the statements alleged by Nicole, those comments were not intended to be harassment., Nicole claimed that she dealt with severe emotional distress and a personality disorder, as well as physical ailments, as a result of Iglesias’ actions. Specifically, she claimed that following her employment at Victorville Speedwash, she suffered from depression, nervousness, loss of appetite, sleep deprivation and nightmares. Nicole further claimed that she dealt with physical ailments, such as hair loss and weight loss as a result of Iglesias’ actions. Nicole’s mother testified that Nicole was a “social butterfly” prior to her daughter’s employment at the car wash, but that her personality changed dramatically. Thus, Nicole sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress, lost wages and medical costs. She also sought recovery of punitive damages. Defense counsel disputed causation for Nicole’s alleged damages, as far as her emotional state. They contended that Nicole had treated with a therapist since February 2010, and that Nicole’s medical records reported depression, lack of sleep, isolation and some suicidal thoughts, well before her employment at Victorville Speedwash. Defense counsel further contended that the therapist’s indication was that Nicole had suffered from major depression and prescribed her medication. In addition, defense counsel noted that from September 2010 through May 2011, Nicole never made any remarks to her therapist associating her problems with Iglesias. Specifically, the therapist testified that he was able to recall one comment Nicole made about being upset with her duties at the car wash, but nothing related to any harassment. Thus, defense counsel argued that this complaint did not equate to Nicole’s allegation of a hostile work environment.