On Sept. 24, 2012, plaintiff Ana Mendoza, began work as a fire watch/safety attendant for Transfield Services Americas. Cruz Hernandez served as both Mendoza’s crew foreman and immediate supervisor. Prior to her employment, at the suggestion of a mutual acquaintance, Mendoza spoke with Hernandez about possibly coming to work for Transfield. Mendoza claimed that from her first day of work through the last day she worked with Hernandez, she was subjected to unwanted and offensive sexual harassment. She claimed that she eventually complained about the harassment on Oct. 24, 2012, and attempted to avoid Hernandez, but that was subjected to retaliatory actions by both Hernandez and Transfield, resulting in her termination on Nov. 16, 2012. Mendoza sued Transfield Services Americas, Transfield Services (North America) Inc., Transfield Services Ltd., and Hernandez. Mendoza asserted 11 causes of action against Transfield, Hernandez, or both. Transfield’s counsel challenged five causes of action and the claim for punitive damages, but did not challenge the claim of sexual harassment. Hernandez’s separate counsel did not file, nor join, any motions. Pending for hearing on April 8, 2014, was Transfield’s counsel’s motion for summary adjudication as to the second cause of action for “quid pro quo” sexual harassment; the third cause of action for failure to prevent harassment from occurring; the fourth cause of action for retaliation for opposing harassment; the eighth cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision and retention; and the 11th cause of action for constructive discharge/wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Hernandez’s sexual harassment of Mendoza included unwanted and offensive physical touching of Mendoza’s leg and hands on one occasion; unwanted and offensive verbal comments about Mendoza’s physical attractiveness; unwanted and offensive demands that Mendoza ride with him in a golf cart to work sites; and repeated unwanted and offensive requests/demands that Mendoza, a married woman with children, “go out” with him, a married man, on dates, for lunch or dinner, for drinks or for coffee. Counsel also contended that Hernandez’s sexual harassment of Mendoza included repeated unwanted and offensive “staring/leering” at Mendoza at work; unwanted and offensive comments that Hernandez had helped Mendoza gain employment with Transfield and that Mendoza needed to give him something back, implying that he wanted to have sex with her. Counsel further contended that additional harassment included unwanted and offensive repeated personal, non-work related, telephone calls to Mendoza’s cell phone after work hours, including leaving voice mail messages of a personal nature; unwanted and offensive repeated personal text messages to Mendoza’s cell phone after work hours; repeated use of unwanted and offensive nicknames (such as “muneca,” which means “doll” in Spanish) to refer to Mendoza; physically stalking Mendoza on multiple occasions, including parking his truck in front of her house uninvited and simply sitting there where she could see him from her window; unwanted and offensive requests that he be allowed to come to Mendoza’s home to see her and for coffee; and spreading false rumors at work that Mendoza was dating a coworker. Mendoza claimed that through her words, body language, conduct and consistent refusal to respond to Hernandez’s non-work-hour phone calls and texts, she opposed Hernandez’ sexual harassment of her. She alleged that she repeatedly and consistently expressed to Hernandez her disapproval of his actions and her disinterest in having anything to do with him socially. She also alleged that she repeatedly and consistently turned down all of his requests to go out, spend time or socialize with him. Mendoza claimed that Hernandez grew increasingly frustrated with her refusal to have a personal relationship with him and that this often put him in a bad mood at work. She also claimed that Hernandez had told her that he knew her husband’s job title and pay rate, causing her to feel threatened given that her husband worked at the same Phillips 66 Wilmington facility as she and Hernandez did. She further claimed that on another occasion, Hernandez offered to help her brother get a job at Transfield, but then apparently withdrew his assistance in retaliation for her ongoing refusal to socialize with him. In addition, she claimed that one of her coworkers told her that Hernandez had sexually harassed another female employee in the past, causing her to eventually quit her job with Transfield, but the coworker also denied this under oath at deposition. Mendoza contended that she had hoped that Hernandez would eventually “get the picture” and leave her alone. She claimed that she routinely talked with her mother about the problems she was having with Hernandez and that her mother agreed that Mendoza should not report the sexual harassment to Transfield’s upper management, but instead should simply continue saying “no” to all of Hernandez’s requests in the hope that he would eventually “get the message” and leave her alone. She also claimed that because she does not read Spanish well, she routinely asked her mother to read the Spanish-language text messages that Hernandez would sometimes leave her and then she would delete them. Mendoza contended that she did not immediately report Hernandez’s improper conduct to Transfield’s upper management because she hoped Hernandez would eventually leave her alone and because she was concerned that if she reported Hernandez’ misconduct, the company would eventually retaliate against her by terminating her employment. She further contended that she also chose not to tell her husband about the sexual harassment because she was afraid that her husband would physically confront Hernandez, causing her husband to lose his job. According to Mendoza, Hernandez began to retaliate against her on Oct. 22, 2012, when Hernandez attempted to set her up to be terminated from Transfield by having someone place a lock on a de-energized machine at work and then forging her signature to the paper attached to the lock. She claimed that an employee leaving work with their lock still on the machine is subject to discipline or termination, and that even though her name was on the paper attached to the lock, she did not even have a lock at work, much less place it on the de-energized machine and sign her name on the attached paper. After examining the paper, Mendoza concluded, based on her familiarity with Hernandez’s handwriting, that Hernandez had forged her name on the paper. Mendoza claimed that as a result, she complained about the sexual harassment to one of Hernandez’s superiors two days later, on Oct. 24, 2012. The supervisor then arranged for Mendoza to talk with the Transfield site supervisor the following day, on Oct. 25, 2012. Mendoza then informed the Transfield site supervisor of the nature, scope and frequency of Hernandez’s sexual harassment of her and provided a written statement, at the Transfield site supervisor’s request. Mendoza was then sent home for the day after being told her that Hernandez would be sent home as well. In addition, Mendoza claimed the supervisor told her that Transfield’s Human Resources Department would be contacted to inform it of her complaint of sexual harassment. Mendoza claimed that Transfield’s Human Resources representative interviewed her by telephone from Washington State to learn more details about her accusations of sexual harassment against Hernandez and interviewed some, but not all, of Mendoza’s coworkers. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Human Resources never asked if anyone else had ever seen any of the text messages that Hernandez sent to Mendoza, never interviewed Mendoza’s mother who had translated many of the texts for her daughter, and never asked Hernandez to provide Transfield with his cell phone or to cooperate in obtaining his cell phone records from his cell phone provider. Counsel contended that instead, Transfield’s Human Resources representative concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain Mendoza’s charges of sexual harassment against Hernandez, but did suspend Hernandez for short period of time for inappropriately contacting Mendoza by telephone during non-working hours concerning non-work matters. Counsel further contended that Transfield’s Human Resources representative offered to transfer Mendoza to a different work facility, the Tesoro facility (also located in Wilmington), where Mendoza would not come into contact with Hernandez, but that after Mendoza accepted the transfer, she was terminated just eight days later, on Nov. 16, 2012, purportedly as part of a reduction of force at the Tesoro facility. Mendoza claimed that after her position was eliminated, she was never informed that she could have applied for further work from Transfield at a different facility by reporting to the Transfield dispatch office. She also denied being told to report to the Transfield dispatch office to seek additional work, so she simply thought her employment had been terminated. A now former Transfield supervisor, who had told Mendoza that her job at Tesoro was ending, claimed that the safety attendant workforce needs at Tesoro were well-known months in advance. She claimed that Transfield knew how many safety attendants (like Mendoza) would be needed at the Tesoro facility weeks or months in advance, so she and Mendoza’s immediate supervisor at Tesoro knew weeks in advance that there would be a reduction of force of safety attendants at Tesoro in mid-November 2012. Consequently, plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Transfield’s Human Resources Department knew about this upcoming layoff when it arranged to transfer Mendoza, a safety attendant, to Tesoro. The former Transfield supervisor claimed that because no one in Transfield’s Human Resources Department contacted her prior to transferring Mendoza to Tesoro, she believes the Human Resources Department knew at the time it decided to transfer Mendoza to Tesoro (through its dispatch office, which handles such transfers) that a reduction of force would be implemented in just over two weeks and that, as the newest safety attendant at Tesoro, Mendoza would be included in the reduction of force. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Mendoza’s fate was further sealed when, after arriving at Tesoro, the former Transfield supervisor’s immediate supervisor at Tesoro transferred Mendoza to the former Transfield supervisor’s work crew, knowing full well that the former Transfield supervisor’s work crew would provide the first employees affected by the reduction of force. Hernandez consistently and repeatedly denied any and all of the conduct that Mendoza alleged. Transfield denied any knowledge of Hernandez’s bad behavior in advance, and claimed that Hernandez was immediately suspended pending investigation. Transfield’s counsel contended that there was no basis to hold Transfield liable for failure to prevent sexual harassment. Counsel asserted that Transfield did a prompt and reasonable investigation, that Transfield could not substantiate Mendoza’s claims, and that as such, Transfield was without liability. Counsel also asserted that Transfield properly moved Mendoza to a different refinery and that Mendoza was laid off due to a reduction in force, which was not motivated in any way by improper reasons. Thus, Transfield’s counsel asserted that there was no retaliation on Transfield’s part. In addition, counsel contended that Transfield’s now former supervisor made the decision, herself, to “select” Mendoza for inclusion in the reduction of force. However, the former supervisor refuted this. Transfield’s counsel obtained a declaration in support of a summary adjudication motion. However, plaintiff’s counsel was then able to secure their own declaration from the former Transfield supervisor, who claimed that Transfield managers, including those in the Human Resources Department, actually knew the precise staffing needs for safety managers, like Mendoza, at the Tesoro facility months in advance. According to plaintiff’s counsel the former Transfield supervisor was located after her initial failure to appear and that the former supervisor declared that Transfield’s attorneys provided a half-true declaration, told her to not testify, and actively engaged in witness suppression. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel also made a discovery sanctions motion, alleging that Transfield’s counsel failed to produce eight employees for deposition and that the declaration obtained by defense counsel as part of its summary adjudication motion was filled with half-truths and was designed to mislead the court. In response to the discovery motions, Transfield claimed it was not subject to sanctions since the missing witnesses were either not employees at the time of their notice and even if they were, the failure of those employees to appear pursuant to court order was beyond the reach of Transfield, as those employees were no longer employees at the time of the order to appear. According to plaintiff’s counsel, Transfield and its lawyers paid no heed to the discovery motions. The plaintiff’s counsel’s discovery sanctions motion was ultimately granted. The court also denied defense counsel’s summary adjudication motion, and imposed issue and evidence sanctions upon defense counsel for the transgressions., Mendoza claimed that she hired by Transfield in September 2012 at the rate of $17-per-hour, but that due to an apparent paperwork error, she was ultimately paid less than $16 an hour. She also claimed that after she accepted the transfer to the Tesoro facility, she had to take a few days off because of stress-related emotional issues as a result of Hernandez’s actions. As a result, she started work at Tesoro on Nov. 8, 2012, but was then terminated eight days later, on Nov. 16, 2012. Thus, Mendoza claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of Hernandez’s actions, as well as Transfield’s retaliating against her by terminating her position. She subsequently treated with a counselor for a few sessions and was released. In addition, Mendoza sought recovery of punitive damages as a result of the defendants’ willful and malicious conduct. Transfield’s counsel asserted that there was no basis for a finding of punitive damages, and sought summary adjudication of Mendoza’s claim for punitive damages. However, the court denied this motion in its entirety.