Supervisor filmed employee in restroom. $835K. Santa Clara County.
Summary
Employee of an optical store is recorded using the restroom.
The Case
- Case Name: John Doe and Jane Doe v. Eye for Optical, Inc. et al.
- Court and Case Number: Santa Clara County Superior Court / 23CV417964
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, June 12, 2025
- Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, June 21, 2023
- Type of Case: Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Carol Overton
-
Plaintiffs: Jane Doe, 25, and John Doe, 28
-
Defendants: Eye for Optical Inc. et al.
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: $835,003
-
Non-Economic Damages:
$535,000
-
Punitive Damages:
$300,003
- Jury Deliberation Time: Less than 1 day
- Post Trial Motions & Post-Verdict Settlements: Attorneys' fees motion - Plaintiffs' attorneys were awarded $536,590.62 in fees .
The Attorneys
-
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Bain Mazza & Debski LLP by Laura M. Mazza, Kathryn L. Bain, and Katherine A. Debski, Redwood City.
-
Attorney for the Defendant:
Law Offices of Earl L. Jiang by Earl Jiang, Fremont.
Facts and Background
-
Facts and Background:
Plaintiffs are a young married couple who were employed by defendant Eye for Optical, Inc. when they discovered that their supervisor, the husband of the owner of Eye for Optical, was recording plaintiff Jane Doe with his personal cell phone while she was using the restroom.
Plaintiffs began working at the business as interns in December 2022 and were made full-time employees (Jane as a sales clerk and John as a lab technician) at the beginning of January 2023. They discovered the cell phone filming of Jane Doe on January 23, 2023, so they had only been working there a few weeks when they quit/were constructively discharged.
Evidence was uncovered during that case that the supervisor had recorded other women using the restroom prior to this, despite his claim that this was the only time he had done this. Jane Doe personally saw on defendant Chang's phone one recording of herself using the restroom and three other attempted recordings from earlier the same day. The police also found four other attempted recordings on defendant supervisor's personal cell phone, including one of an unknown/unnamed woman using the restroom at one of the store locations. These recordings were made prior to plaintiffs' employment at Eye for Optical.
-
Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiffs contended that defendant supervisor recorded Jane Doe using the restroom without her knowledge or consent and that the company had no sexual harassment policy or procedure, nor provided required sexual harassment training to supervisory employees per California law.
Plaintiffs also contended that they were constructively discharged and suffered emotional distress as a result of defendants' actions/failure to act.
-
Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant supervisor contended that this was the only time he had ever done this.