L&G Law Group partners Pamela L. Gellen and Patrick R. Moran obtained a not guilty verdict in federal court on behalf of the Will County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Paul J. Kaupas and a retired lieutenant after a two-week jury trial. The plaintiff, a former correctional officer at the Will County Jail, sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that eight coworkers had sexually harassed her over a 15-month period while she worked at the jail. She also alleged that she had to leave her job due to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) she developed as a result of the harassment, and is now no longer employable in any capacity because she has a difficult time leaving her home and caring for herself. At trial, Ms. Gellen and Mr. Moran established that the plaintiff was not sexually harassed, that she did not complain to anyone about sexual harassment while she was working and that the reason she left her job had nothing to do with sexual harassment. They were able to show that the plaintiff had friendships with several coworkers she had accused of sexual harassment, including one with whom she had started a romantic relationship after the alleged harassment began. Although the plaintiff said she complained to numerous supervisors about sexual harassment while she was working, the supervisors, many of whom are women, testified that the plaintiff made no such complaints. The plaintiff’s fiancé, who was also one of her coworkers at the jail, testified that he did not know of or observe any sexual harassment while the plaintiff was working. Finally, the defense showed that the plaintiff stopped working after she was caught falsifying an official incident report regarding an inmate fight. Throughout the trial and especially during her testimony, the plaintiff had several emotional outbursts and moments of uncontrolled sobbing, but the defense played audio recordings from an interview the plaintiff had given to an internal affairs investigator in which she calmly described the same instances of alleged harassment without any emotion. The defense also played a surveillance video recording that showed the plaintiff doing activities outside of her home she said she could no longer do. As for the plaintiff’s alleged inability to work, the defense contended that she did not have PTSD and had no functional limitations that prevented her from working. Notably, the trial judge struck the plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist’s testimony that the plaintiff had PTSD as a result of what occurred at the jail because the psychiatrist recanted her opinions under cross-examination.