On Nov. 24, 2010, the Wednesday night before Thanksgiving, plaintiff Amanda Vandervoort, 26, an administrative technician for the Fontana Unified School District’s internal school police department, was covering a dispatch shift that ran from 6 p.m. until the following morning, at 6 a.m. Vandervoort previously worked as a dispatcher for the school police department and, on occasion, covered dispatch shifts when necessary. During Vandervoort’s shift on the night of Nov. 24, 2010, a school police officer, John Garcia, went into the locker room and changed out of his police officer uniform after his shift ended at 11 p.m. He then entered the dispatch office, where Vandervoort was alone. Vandervoort claimed that Garcia sexually assaulted her, but that she did not physically resist his advances because she felt threatened. She also claimed she was afraid and did not report the incident to anyone. In February 2011, Vandervoort was again alone in her office when Garcia allegedly attempted to sexually assault her again. Vandervoort did not report this incident either. Vandervoort claimed that in August 2011, Garcia entered her office with his penis exposed and again sexually assaulted her. She also claimed that there were numerous other females that Garcia had assaulted. An investigation of Garcia was ultimately conducted, and Garcia was placed on administrative leave. He was then terminated from his position in December 2012. Vandervoort sued Garcia and Garcia’s employer, the Fontana Unified School District. Vandervoort alleged that Garcia’s actions constituted sexual harassment and that the school district failed to prevent the sexual harassment. She also brought other causes of action. The court granted the school district’s motion for nonsuit on the retaliation and civil-rights claims, but Garcia’s nonsuit motions were denied. In light of the court’s split ruling on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, all other claims were dismissed except for the claims of sexual harassment and failure to prevent harassment. Vandervoort claimed that on the night of Nov. 24, 2010, Garcia entered the dispatch office while she was alone and rubbed her shoulders and breasts, and kissed her neck and lips. She claimed she tried to resist verbally, but acquiesced in the activity after Garcia claimed that he had things on her boyfriend, who was also a school police officer. Vandervoort claimed that as a result of the threats, she did not physically resist Garcia’s advances and was forced to have oral sex with Garcia for approximately one to two minutes before being forcibly pulled from her chair, bent her over the dispatch desk, and made to copulate for a few minutes. She claimed that she sobbed and cried until Garcia stopped. Vandervoort claimed that Garcia sexually assaulted her again in February 2011, when Garcia exposed his penis, forced her hand on it and told her to stroke it. She alleged that this time, she pulled her hand back after a few seconds and told Garcia to leave. Vandervoort claimed that she did not initially report either incident because she was afraid. However, she claimed that Garcia again entered her office with his penis exposed in August 2011 and forced her mouth onto it. She alleged that after approximately five seconds, she told Garcia to leave and that Garcia told her that they would “finish” another time. Vandervoort claimed that when she learned that there were numerous other females that Garcia had assaulted, she reported the incidents, causing an investigation to be conducted and Garcia to be placed on administrative leave before being subsequently terminated in December 2012. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the Fontana Unified School District knew of Garcia’s prior history, but hired him anyway. Counsel presented evidence at trial of Garcia’s alleged numerous prior acts of coercion. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the hiring sergeant at Fontana Police Department from 2005 through 2007, Robert Ratcliffe, initially approved Garcia for hiring at the Fontana Police Department, but that Garcia was fired in 2006 after an 18-year-old female cadet accused him of groping and engaging in unwanted touching while alone with her on a ride-along. Counsel contended that a Fontana police detective sergeant investigated the cadet’s accusations, prepared a detailed police report (including physical evidence of Garcia’s criminal conduct that was consistent with the cadet’s allegations), and recommended that Garcia be prosecuted for a crime. However, the deputy district attorney, who plaintiff’s counsel noted was Garcia’s best friend and best man at Garcia’s wedding, rejected the case, and no criminal charges were ever filed. However, the Fontana Police Department terminated Garcia in the summer of 2006. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Ratcliffe personally escorted Garcia from the Fontana Police Department premises, during which Garcia admitted his conduct was wrong and apologized. According to plaintiff’s counsel, Ratcliffe kept in touch with Garcia and that after Garcia applied for other police officer positions at several agencies, all of which rejected him as unsuitable, Ratcliffe told Garcia to be patient and that he would get Garcia back into law enforcement. As a result, when Ratcliffe was promoted to lieutenant in January 2008 and given the special assignment to work as the Police Chief for the Fontana Unified School District, he allegedly contacted Garcia in early 2008 and told Garcia to apply for a position as an officer with the school police. Thus, Garcia applied in April 2008, Ratcliffe approved Garcia’s application for hiring, and Garcia was hired as a police officer in the summer of 2008. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Garcia was an exemplary officer, winning police-officer-of-the-year awards, causing him to receive a special assignment promotion where he was assigned to work with at-risk high school youths. Garcia’s duties required him to visit the homes of kids, at night, where he would also interact with the parents of the students. Many of the students had single mothers, were in low income families, and lacked command of the English language. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that as a result, Garcia began to display inappropriate behavior toward female coworkers and mothers of students. Counsel contended that in October 2010, Garcia cornered a 36-year-old female campus security officer while wearing his police officer uniform, grabbed her hand, forcibly placed it on his crotch area, and made her rub it. Counsel contended that the female victim reported the incident to her supervisor two weeks later. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed the written sexual harassment policy for the Fontana Unified School District’s police department instructed victims of sexual harassment to tell the harasser to stop the harassment, but did not make it mandatory to report the incidents. The policy also instructed that a sexual harassment victim could report the incident to a supervisor within six months, and if so reported, the supervisor was allegedly required to report the incident to the Chief of Police and undertake an immediate investigation with prompt, corrective action. However, counsel contended that, at the time, the female victim and her supervisor were in a romantic dating relationship, and the female victim begged her supervisor to not report the incident out of fear that she would be terminated. As a result, the supervisor did not report or investigate the alleged incident, and no corrective action was ever undertaken. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the failure of the supervisor to report or investigate the alleged incident was a violation of the Fontana Unified School District’s written sexual harassment policy. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Garcia was again alone with the same female coworker in November 2010 while they were en route to the police station when Garcia ordered the female to pull the vehicle into a darkened, empty parking lot. Counsel contended that Garcia then placed his hand on the female’s upper thigh and asked her to “play.” Counsel claimed that the female victim again told her supervisor about Garcia’s conduct, but that the supervisor again failed to report the incident or investigate it. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that there were several other incidents involving Garcia during the following months. Counsel contended that in December 2010, after the alleged initial incident with Vandervoort, Garcia entered the dispatch office, saw another female dispatcher working alone, and forcibly placed the dispatcher’s hand on his crotch and kissed her on the lips. However, counsel contended that the dispatcher ultimately did not report the incident out of fear of getting fired. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that in March 2011, Garcia called a mother of a Fontana High School student to his office at night, forcibly raped her, and threatened her with harm if she reported on him. Counsel further contended that Garcia stalked the mother for months, showing up at her home at night, and made traffic stops of the mother, during which, on two occasions, Garcia pulled the mother out of her car and groped and fondled her. The mother ultimately reported Garcia to a Truancy officer with the Fontana Unified School District’s police department, who allegedly failed to report the complaint, saying it would not do any good because Garcia was a decorated officer and no one would believe the woman. Counsel argued that as a result, the mother went to the Fontana Police Department and made a formal sex crime report against Garcia, but that the police department closed their investigation as inconclusive. Thus, no charges were ever filed and no criminal action was ever taken against Garcia about the alleged incidents against the mother. Further, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Garcia also forced another female campus security officer to touch him in March 2011 and that, in August 2011, Garcia bragged to a fellow police officer that he was “banging” mothers of The Fontana Leadership Intervention Program, which was founded upon a partnership between the city of Fontana Police Department, the Fontana School Police and the Fontana Unified School District. Counsel claimed that while bragging, Garcia showed the other officer naked pictures of a female on his cell phone. Counsel contended that Garcia then showed other naked pictures to a female dispatcher in August 2011 and told the female dispatcher that the two naked women in the picture were going to make a “Garcia sandwich.” The female dispatcher rejected Garcia’s advances and told him to leave, and in September 2011, the previous male officer reported the incident of Garcia’s showing the naked image on his cell phone. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that this time, the new chief of police, who had assumed command in July 2011, immediately placed Garcia on administrative leave pending internal investigation into Garcia’s misconduct. As part of the internal affairs investigation, all Fontana Unified School District police personnel were interviewed, including all four of Garcia’s alleged female coworker victims, who reported the details of Garcia’s sexual assaults and sexual harassment over the past year. Garcia was also criminally investigated and he was eventually recommended for termination six months later, in March 2012. After attempting appeal the termination, Garcia was officially terminated in December 2012. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Fontana Unified School District knew of Garcia’s behavior at the Fontana Police Department and that the Fontana Unified School District never should have hired him. Counsel noted that in Garcia’s application materials for the school police position, Garcia admitted he had failed repeated polygraph examinations, had been rejected for hiring at every police agency he had applied to, and had been out of law enforcement for two years. Counsel also claimed that Garcia lied repeatedly on his written application, including lying about what really happened with the 18-year-old cadet on the ride-along in 2006 by claiming that he was practicing “control holds.” Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Garcia also lied about being investigated criminally for allegedly sexually assaulting the 18-year-old cadet on the ride-along and lied about being referred to the district attorney for criminal prosecution. Counsel further contended that Garcia deliberately omitted details of hiring a lawyer to defend against the criminal allegations and being terminated before the internal affairs investigation was completed, thus falsely implying that there was no criminal basis for being terminated from the Fontana Police Department. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that Garcia was able to avoid the background investigation process that would have automatically rejected him as a candidate for hiring by the Fontana Unified School District’s police department. Further, plaintiff’s counsel contended that after being hired as an officer for the Fontana Unified School District’s internal police department, Garcia engaged in acts of sexual harassment and sexual assault and that the Fontana Unified School District was aware of the misconduct, but failed to investigate or discipline Garcia, thereby failing to prevent sexual harassment. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the Fontana Unified School District’s liability expert admitted that Garcia should have never been hired if it was true that Garcia lied on his application materials. Garcia invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and refused to testify at trial. Garcia’s counsel argued that even though it violated company policy and led to Garcia’s termination, Garcia engaged in strictly consensual behavior. Counsel for the Fontana Unified School District disputed the claim that the district’s sexual harassment policy did not make it mandatory to report harassment. Counsel also disputed the claim that Garcia forcibly raped the mother of the Fontana High School student and noted that the mother only reported that Garcia was coming to her workplace. The Fontana Unified School District claimed that Garcia was put through a standard background process and that Garcia passed and was properly hired. It also claimed that it was unaware of Garcia’s misconduct until September 2011, more than a year after it had occurred. It further claimed that the supervisor of the school police, who allegedly knew of the report of Garcia’s sexual misconduct against his female coworker, never reported Garcia to the Chief of Police. Therefore, the school district’s counsel argued that the Fontana Unified School District could not be held liable under a sexual harassment theory because the school district did not know of the alleged harassment, which counsel denied even happened. The Fontana Unified School District’s police department claimed that as soon as it learned of Garcia’s misconduct with four, separate, female coworkers, it promptly put Garcia on paid administrative leave, began a six-month investigation, and then placed Garcia on unpaid leave with a recommendation that Garcia be terminated. It also noted that Garcia was given his Skelly hearing, which allows an employee to respond to the allegations prior to the imposition of any actual disciplinary action, and that the termination decision was unchanged, even after Garcia appealed the recommendation for termination. The school police also claimed that at the Skelly arbitration hearing, Garcia was terminated for “consensual” sexual activity in violation of the Fontana Unified School District’s policy. In addition, counsel for the Fontana Unified School District argued that all of Garcia’s conduct towards Vandervoort was consensual and that Vandervoort voluntarily engaged in sexual conduct with Garcia as part of a scheme to get revenge upon her boyfriend for breaking up with her years earlier. Thus, both the school district’s counsel and Garcia’s trial counsel argued that all of the sexual activity was consensual and, therefore, not unwanted. In response, plaintiff’s counsel noted that Vandervoort and her boyfriend had resumed their relationship and were later married. Counsel also called to the stand the lawyer who argued for the Fontana Unified School District at arbitration, and the lawyer admitted that Garcia was terminated for engaging in serious sexual misconduct towards Vandervoort and other females., Vandervoort claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the incidents involving Garcia. She was subsequently seen in consultation by her treating psychologist, who diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. Vandervoort alleged that as a result, she was initially placed off work in November 2011 by her treating workers’ compensation mental health providers, but later returned to work in February 2012. Vandervoort claimed that her condition gradually improved and that by the time of trial, she had been weaned off of anti-anxiety medications altogether. However, her treating psychologist recommended a course of future short-term therapy with additional treatment on an on-going, as needed, basis. Thus, Vandervoort sought recovery of past and future non-economic damages. (She did not make a claim for economic damages for any of her treatment costs.) According to counsel for the Fontana Unified School District, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Vandervoort $19.7 million in total damages.