$300K Verdict in Restroom Recording Harassment Case
Table of Contents
Case Background: Events Before the Incident
In November 2022, Jane Doe and her husband John Doe sought employment in the optometry field in Santa Clara County. They met Kenneth Chang, owner of Eye for Optical, Inc. (doing business as Site for Sore Eyes), at the company’s San Jose store. John Doe began an unpaid internship as a lab technician in Mountain View and later accepted a full-time job. Jane Doe was hired as a full-time sales associate at the same location. They both officially started on January 6, 2023.
Cause: Events Leading to the Legal Dispute
Soon after joining, the couple observed inappropriate behavior by Mr. Chang, including sexual comments and suggestive remarks in the workplace. On January 23, 2023, Jane Doe discovered a cell phone actively recording in the employee restroom. The phone, owned by Mr. Chang, had been capturing footage for over seven minutes. She found additional recordings aimed at filming anyone using the restroom. Jane Doe immediately alerted John Doe, who inspected and deleted the videos. Mr. Chang reportedly apologized and asked them to keep it secret. That evening, the couple filed a police report.
Injury: Plaintiffs’ Injuries and Impact
Jane Doe experienced severe emotional distress from the restroom recording and earlier harassment. She sought therapy and struggled to cope with the violation of privacy. John Doe also suffered emotional harm, especially after confronting his wife’s harasser, who was also his supervisor. Both Plaintiffs left their jobs and found the workplace environment intolerable. They claimed the incident severely disrupted their personal and professional lives.
Damages: Claimed Financial and Emotional Losses
The Plaintiffs sought general and special damages, including lost wages, therapy costs, and future medical expenses. They requested punitive damages, arguing the conduct was malicious and oppressive. They also sought attorney’s fees, statutory penalties, and any relief deemed just by the court.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Jane Doe | John Doe
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Laura M. Mazza
Defendants: Eye for Optical, Inc. | Kenneth Chang | Teresa To
Counsel for Defendants: Earl Long Jiang
Claims: Allegations Against the Defendants
The complaint set out seven legal claims:
Sexual Harassment (FEHA) – Jane Doe alleged a hostile work environment and gender-based harassment.
Sex Discrimination (FEHA) – She claimed discrimination impacted her employment conditions and advancement.
Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination – Plaintiffs alleged the employer failed to act on prior complaints.
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy – The Plaintiffs said they were constructively discharged.
Intrusion into Private Affairs – Mr. Chang’s restroom recording allegedly violated their right to privacy.
Negligence – Plaintiffs claimed the employer breached its duty of care.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress – They alleged foreseeable emotional harm resulting from the employer’s actions.
Defense
Defendants Eye for Optical, Inc., Teresa To, and Kenneth Chang filed general denials to all allegations in the Plaintiffs’ complaint. They denied any wrongdoing or liability for damages. In their affirmative defenses, the Defendants asserted that the complaint failed to state valid legal claims and argued that any harm suffered was due to Plaintiffs’ own actions, third-party conduct, or intervening causes. They further claimed that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages, and that the claims were barred by statutes of limitations, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, laches, and lack of causation.
Additionally, the Defendants invoked Civil Code §1431.2, asserting that any liability for non-economic damages should be several—not joint—and limited to each Defendant’s percentage of fault. They reserved the right to add further defenses as the case progresses and sought dismissal of the complaint along with recovery of legal costs.
Jury Verdict
On June 6, 2025, the jury awarded Jane Doe punitive damages totaling $300,000 in her civil suit arising from workplace misconduct. The verdict imposed $200,000 in punitive damages against Kenneth Chang personally and $100,000 against Eye for Optical, Inc. dba Site for Sore Eyes, confirming the Defendants’ liability for egregious conduct as detailed in the jury’s findings.