Beginning in 2013, plaintiffs Beth Silverman, a woman in her 40s, and Tannaz Mokayef, both deputy district attorneys for the county of Los Angeles’ district attorney’s office, were allegedly subjected to repeated sexual harassment and unwanted sexual touching on multiple dates and times. They claimed their direct supervisor, Head Deputy Gary Hearnsberger, subjected them to the unwanted treatment while in the district attorney’s office and at office-sanctioned functions. Silverman and Mokayef both claimed that the administration knew about Hearnsberger’s conduct for many years, as he had allegedly subjected numerous other women to sexually explicit behavior, but that the culture of the office discouraged women from complaining because it would ruin their careers. Silverman and Mokayef sued Hearnsberger and their employer, the county of Los Angeles. Silverman and Mokayef alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. They also alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment based on sexual favoritism in violation of FEHA. They further alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted sexual harassment by quid pro quo in violation of FEHA and a failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment. The lawsuit was initially filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court (see “Silverman v. County of Los Angeles,” Docket No. BC577363), but the matter was transferred to Orange County after the Los Angeles County Superior Court bench was disqualified from hearing the case. Mokayef then confidentially settled with the county of Los Angeles. Silverman’s counsel contended Hearnsberger’s behavior created a hostile work environment and noted that as a result of the filing of the lawsuit, other women and victims of Hearnsberger’s alleged sexual harassment came forward to corroborate the plaintiffs’ claims. Silverman claimed that Hearnsberger physically touched her on several occasions, made sexually inappropriate remarks, looked at sexually explicit materials at work, engaged in sexually explicit conversations in the workplace, and made sexually-suggestive gestures, including simulating oral sex. She also claimed that although she had 20 years of top-rated performance evaluations, after the filing of the lawsuit, she was subjected to retaliation from the administration of the district attorney’s office, including retaliation from her immediate supervisor/head deputy who had replaced Hearnsberger after he was transferred to another unit and ultimately put on work-from-home status due to the filing of the lawsuit. Silverman contended that her later immediate supervisor rated her downward in an unjustified performance evaluation, even though she had just completed one of the most notorious serial murder trials in the office’s history, and gained a conviction and the death penalty, in addition to trying other cases during the rating period. Plaintiffs’ counsel noted that Hearnsberger testified at his deposition, during which Hearnsberger made several admissions related to engaging in sexually inappropriate and harassing behavior. Defense counsel would have argued that Silverman and Mokayef were fabricating the allegations and that the administration was not aware of the alleged harassment., Silverman claimed that she suffered emotional distress from being subjected to the hostile environment and events. She also claimed that she suffered damage to her career and reputation as a result of the defendants’ retaliation. Specifically, Silverman claimed that she was not supported by the administration after she brought her claims to them and that her immediate supervisor denied her resources and rated her performance evaluation downward, which damaged her reputation and ability to do her job effectively.