On Feb. 22, 2012, the plaintiff, a 14-year-old student at Patrick Henry High School, in San Diego, was in a 25-minute advisory class, which was a required period for all freshmen and others who needed help in order to raise standardized test scores. Students who performed well on standardized tests were allowed free time during the 25 minutes, while freshmen and other students were required to be in the advisory class. The specific class had a no bathroom-break policy due to the belief that if breaks were allowed, then students would likely mingle instead of attending the class. The teenage student allegedly told a classmate during the advisory class that she urgently needed to use the bathroom, but was afraid that the teacher, Gonja Wolf, an art teacher, would not give her a pass. She eventually told Wolf that she urgently needed to use the bathroom. However, Wolf, believing that it was against school rules, rejected the student’s request and, instead, showed her to a supply room, adjacent to the classroom, where the student could privately urinate in a bucket and dump the contents in a sink. The student claimed the incident caused her great emotional distress, causing her to have to transfer schools. The student, through her guardian ad litem, sued Wolf; the principal of Patrick Henry High School, Patricia Crowder; the operator of the high school, the San Diego Unified School District; and the communications director for the San Diego Unified School District, Linda Zintz. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Crowder and Zintz were ultimately let out of the case, and the matter continued against Wolf and the school district only. The plaintiff’s school policy and administration expert opined that Patrick Henry High School should not have had the no-bathroom-break policy and that it was never a solution to have a child urinate in a bucket with other students present, unless there was an extreme situation, such as if the school was on lockdown and there was an active shooter. Defense attorneys for both Wolf and the school district contended that the plaintiff should have just walked out of the classroom to use the restroom when her request was denied. Wolf, an experienced teacher, claimed that she believed the policy was strict and could not be broken. She also claimed that the bucket was a reasonable solution to the problem of not breaking the policy and not letting the student wet herself. Defense counsel for the San Diego Unified School District contended that the policy was required for the advisory class to prevent students from mingling in the hallways when they needed to raise their test scores. However, counsel noted that once the Patrick Henry High School administration found out about the incident, Wolf, who was popular and had no record of discipline, was put on paid administrative leave and never returned to campus. Counsel also noted that the school made it clear to teachers that students should not be denied bathroom trips. In addition, counsel noted that administrators apologized to the plaintiff and her mother, and extended offers of assistance. The defense’s school/education expert opined that Wolf’s decision to have the student use the bucket was “ill advised,” but that the school did everything else properly., The teenage student claimed that once word of the incident got out, she was mercilessly teased, and was the subject of gossip and text messages. She also claimed that widespread media coverage of the incident, with television news crews showing up at her home and school, scared her. She claimed that as a result, she suffers from depression and was forced to transfer schools twice. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the student attempted suicide. All of the experts agreed that the plaintiff suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, for which the plaintiff is currently receiving counseling. The plaintiff is now 19 years old and has earned a diploma from a charter school. She is also currently working. However, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the plaintiff will continue to require counseling in the future. Defense counsel argued that the plaintiff’s parents were negligent and delayed their daughter’s psychological treatment after the incident. The attorneys also contended that the plaintiff’s treatment was inconsistent.