On Jan. 13, 2015, the plaintiff, a 14-year-old freshman at Pasadena High School, was allegedly pressured into engaging in a sexual encounter, including intercourse, with a 17-year-old male student in the auditorium. She claimed that she was pressured by the male student and Pasadena High School personnel. The girl’s guardian sued the operator of the high school, the Pasadena Unified School District. The lawsuit alleged that the school district’s personnel on the high school campus negligently supervised the school district’s employees and the students. The plaintiff claimed that a male student made arrangements with a Pasadena High School security officer to get her out of class and bring her to the male student. She claimed that the school’s security officer facilitated the sexual encounter by removing her from her classroom, taking her to the auditorium to meet the male student and opening a locked auditorium, where the male student was waiting for her. The plaintiff further claimed that the security officer had a reputation for facilitating students’ inappropriate conduct. Defense counsel admitted that the school district negligently caused the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the subject incident and that the plaintiff did not have comparative fault or causation. As a result, the parties stipulated that the school district was 100 percent liable for the plaintiff’s damages., The plaintiff claimed that she was pressured into engaging in a sexual encounter than included intercourse. She further claimed that she became the victim of threats, bullying and slander on social media from other students such that she feared returning to a regular high school environment. She claimed that she was unable to return to any high school in the area due to her fear and embarrassment of being labeled a “snitch,” a “ho” and other derogatory terms regarding her character. She was eventually able to complete her high school education at another school. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the plaintiff lost four years of important social interaction and maturity that comes from having a normal, four-year high school experience. Counsel also contended that the plaintiff suffered a loss of trust from the institutional betrayal that caused the incident. The plaintiff claimed that she suffers emotional distress due to the fear, shame, humiliation and anxiety she experienced. The plaintiff’s psychology expert opined that the plaintiff experiences post-traumatic stress disorder as the cumulative effect of the events of Jan. 13, 2015, and afterward, which included a five-day suspension from her school and never being able to return to a regular high school environment due to the threats of physical harm and the damage to her reputation. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the plaintiff needs at least 100 sessions of counseling from a mental health professional over the course of her lifetime. Counsel also contended that the counseling rates would be $175 to $400 per hour. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award the plaintiff $800,000 to $2 million in total damages, including $7,265.81 in past medical costs, $17,500 to $40,000 in future medical costs, and an unspecified amount of damages for her past and future emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel contended that, due to prior conflicts with her parents, the plaintiff suffered oppositional defiant disorder, a type of behavior disorder that causes children to be uncooperative, defiant and hostile toward peers, parents, teachers and other authority figures. Counsel argued that the plaintiff’s oppositional defiant disorder pre-existed the subject incident and was resolved after 15 weeks of counseling with a licensed marriage and family therapist, who started treatment six months after the subject incident. The defense’s psychiatry expert dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that she suffered emotional distress. The expert opined that the plaintiff did not qualify for a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and that the plaintiff does not require counseling. The expert also opined that the plaintiff could have returned to her high school or another high school after the incident. However, plaintiff’s counsel disputed the defense expert’s ability to diagnose the plaintiff, noting that the defense’s expert psychiatrist failed to meet with the plaintiff.