On Dec. 10, 2010, plaintiff Barbara McKnight, a science teacher at Laguna Beach High School, arrived to class an hour and a half late. As a result, the high school principal, Don Austin, attempted to have McKnight take a breathalyzer test, but that McKnight declined to take it without first consulting with her legal counsel. When her counsel could not be reached, McKnight was sent home on paid administrative leave. McKnight previously filed a complaint about how she believed that she and other female teachers were being harassed by the high school principal, Don Austin, based in part on their gender. She claimed that the district retaliated against her on or after Dec. 10, 2010 as a result of her filing the complaint. She also claimed that she was further retaliated against by her employer when it defamed her by spreading rumors throughout the school community that she had come to work impaired by alcohol on Dec. 10, 2010. McKnight sued the Laguna Beach Unified School District, alleging that its actions constituted defamation, breach of privacy, retaliation, and failure to prevent retaliation. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that for more than three years, McKnight had been a thorn in the side of Austin as a whistleblower on a variety of issues. Counsel also contended that the circumstances surrounding the subject event were blown out of proportion and publicized by school district officials to retaliate against McKnight for having repeatedly reported to school board members that she and two other female teachers at Laguna Beach High School had been harassed, at least in part, based upon their gender by the then high school principal, Austin. Counsel further contended that there was evidence that a board member had passed McKnight’s harassment claim on to the superintendent. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the district retaliated against McKnight on or after Dec. 10, 2010 for filing her complaint about Austin harassing her and other female teachers in regard to their gender. In regard to the subject incident, plaintiff’s counsel argued that McKnight had over-slept on the morning of Dec. 10, 2010 due to having pressing family issues that had contributed to her having late nights that week — including McKnight’s sibling back east who had suffered a major heart attack after having been on dialysis for many years. Counsel also argued that McKnight declined to submit to a breathalyzer test due to the distrust she had of Austin, based on a history of extensive prior conflicts with Austin, which had caused her to spend more than $20,000 on attorneys. Counsel contended that as a result, McKnight declined to submit to a breathalyzer test without first consulting with her legal counsel, but that when her counsel could not be reached, McKnight was sent home on paid leave and promised an investigation (including an interview by an outside investigator), which then never occurred. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that although McKnight resumed teaching the next month and continued teaching until her retirement in June 2014, after 27 years with the district, McKnight had been defamed and her right to privacy had been violated due to her employer spreading rumors throughout the school community about how she had come to work impaired by alcohol on Dec. 10, 2010, despite the fact that it was not proven. Thus, counsel argued that the district’s actions constituted defamation and that the publicizing of private matters were retaliatory in nature. The plaintiff’s human resources expert opined that the school district failed to meet the minimum human resources standards to maintain confidentiality and failed to properly investigate claims of employee misconduct. The school district claimed that McKnight seemed impaired on the subject date and was asked to take a breathalyzer because she smelled of alcohol. (There was evidence from students, teachers, and staff on both sides of that issue.) Thus, defense counsel argued that McKnight was appropriately sent home on paid administrative leave. Counsel also argued that it was believed that the information about why McKnight was sent home was disclosed by either McKnight herself and/or her friends. Defense counsel explained that McKnight was not given a specific directive to keep the information confidential and that would be something that, in the future, would occur and that the school district just assumed that McKnight would keep that information confidential, but apparently there needed to be a more specific directive. In response, McKnight claimed that any bad odor that she may have had was due to a garlic-laden salad that she had consumed the night before, combined with the fact that she had not taken steps to properly deal with personal hygiene (ie. showering) that morning because she had over-slept and was rushing to get to work. She further claimed that the school district had just presumed that she was inebriated without proof because she refused to submit to a sobriety test., McKnight worked with the school district for 27 years, but she claimed the incident and the rumors that were spread caused her great embarrassment, emotional distress, and damage to her reputation. Thus, McKnight sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress and damage to reputation.