Contact Us

Se Habla Español:

310-294-9595
CALL
EMAIL

Dedicated Trial Attorneys

For Employment Law And Personal Injury Law

Photo of the legal professionals at Brock & Gonzales LLP
Z
Talk to a Lawyer Immediately.
Z
Offices throughout California
Z
Bilingual Attorneys
Z
Record Breaking Jury Verdicts

$3.5 Million Sexual Harassment Verdict Against the County of Orange

Verdict Returned February 17, 2026 | Published March 12, 2026

Brock & Gonzales LLP | Employment Law, Sexual Harassment

On February 17, 2026, a San Diego County Superior Court jury awarded $3.5 million to veteran Orange County prosecutor Bethel Cope-Vega after finding that she was subjected to severe and pervasive workplace sexual harassment, and that the County of Orange failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent and correct the harassment. The case was tried by Brock & Gonzales attorneys D. Aaron Brock, Robert Clayton, and Jesse Stratos before the Hon. Katherine A. Bacal, Dept. C-63.

The jury awarded $3,000,000 for past emotional distress and $500,000 for future emotional distress.

Brock & Gonzales trial team after .5 million sexual harassment verdict for Bethel Cope-Vega against County of Orange, San Diego County Superior Court, February 2026

Background of the Case

Bethel Cope-Vega worked as a deputy district attorney in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, where her supervisor, Gary LoGalbo, subjected her to sexual harassment. Cope-Vega was one of several women who raised complaints against LoGalbo.

In 2020, the County of Orange retained the law firm of Elisabeth A. Frater to conduct an outside investigation into the harassment allegations. The 162-page Frater report, completed April 28, 2021, substantiated allegations that LoGalbo’s conduct toward subordinates was severe or pervasive.

The case was filed on March 30, 2022, originally as Jane Roe Two v. County of Orange, and was eventually tried in San Diego County Superior Court rather than Orange County. Cope-Vega’s case was the only one of the LoGalbo-related lawsuits in which the jury was asked to decide harassment liability based on LoGalbo’s conduct without retaliation claims involving District Attorney Todd Spitzer.

What the Jury Found

The verdict was returned on a special verdict form that asked the jury to decide each element of two causes of action under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The jury found:

  • LoGalbo’s gender or sex-based harassment of Cope-Vega was severe or pervasive
  • A reasonable woman in Cope-Vega’s circumstances would have considered the work environment hostile
  • Cope-Vega herself considered the work environment hostile
  • The harassment was a substantial factor in causing harm to Cope-Vega
  • The County did not take reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace harassment
  • Cope-Vega did not unreasonably fail to use the County’s complaint procedures
  • The County failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment
  • The County’s failure to prevent was a substantial factor in causing harm

The jury awarded a total of $3.5 million in non-economic damages.

Independent News Coverage

The verdict received significant independent press coverage, including:

Why This Verdict Matters for California Workers

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects employees from sexual harassment in the workplace, including harassment by supervisors, coworkers, and third parties. FEHA also imposes an independent duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent and correct harassment. An employer can be liable under FEHA both for the underlying harassment and, separately, for failing to prevent it.

The Cope-Vega verdict reflects what a jury concluded was warranted compensation for the emotional harm caused by years of workplace harassment and an employer that, in the jury’s finding, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. The case also illustrates that California public agencies are not shielded from accountability under FEHA. The jury found the County of Orange liable on the same standards that would apply to any private employer.

What to Do If You Have Experienced Workplace Sexual Harassment

If you believe you have been subjected to workplace sexual harassment in California, time matters. Under current California law as amended by AB 9 (effective January 1, 2020), employees generally have three years from the most recent act of harassment to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). After receiving a right-to-sue notice, a civil lawsuit must generally be filed within one year. Documentation of incidents, preservation of communications, and early consultation with an experienced employment attorney protect your rights.

Brock & Gonzales represents employees across California in sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination matters on a contingency fee basis. You pay no attorney fees unless we recover compensation for you.

Have You Experienced Workplace Sexual Harassment in California? Speak with a Brock & Gonzales employment attorney. Free, confidential case evaluation. No fee unless we win. Contact Us Today | Call 310-294-9595

FAQ Section

What was the verdict in Bethel Cope-Vega v. County of Orange?

On February 17, 2026, a San Diego County Superior Court jury awarded $3.5 million to veteran Orange County prosecutor Bethel Cope-Vega. The jury found that the County of Orange was liable under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act for sexual harassment by her supervisor Gary LoGalbo, and separately for failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent and correct the harassment. The damages were $3 million for past emotional distress and $500,000 for future emotional distress.

Who represented Bethel Cope-Vega at trial?

Cope-Vega was represented at trial by Brock & Gonzales attorneys D. Aaron Brock, Robert Clayton, and Jesse Stratos.

Can I sue my employer for workplace sexual harassment in California?

Yes. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits workplace sexual harassment by supervisors, coworkers, and third parties. Employees may recover lost wages, emotional distress damages, and in some cases punitive damages. Most employees must first file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department and obtain a right-to-sue notice before filing a civil lawsuit.

What is the statute of limitations for sexual harassment in California?

Under California law as amended by AB 9 (effective January 1, 2020), employees generally have three years from the most recent act of harassment to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. After receiving a right-to-sue notice, a civil lawsuit generally must be filed within one year. The deadlines that apply to your case depend on the facts and should be reviewed with an attorney.

What is a “failure to prevent harassment” claim?

Under FEHA, employers have an independent legal duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring. An employer can be liable for failing to prevent harassment even if the employer is not directly liable for the underlying harassment itself. In the Cope-Vega case, the jury found both that LoGalbo’s harassment was severe or pervasive and that the County failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Can public agencies in California be held liable for workplace sexual harassment?

Yes. Public agencies in California, including county district attorney offices, are subject to the same Fair Employment and Housing Act standards as private employers. Employees of public agencies have the same rights to file harassment complaints and to recover damages.

What types of damages can I recover in a California sexual harassment lawsuit?

Damages can include lost wages and benefits, future earnings losses, emotional distress damages (both past and future), and in cases involving employer malice, oppression, or fraud, punitive damages. The Cope-Vega jury awarded $3 million in past emotional distress and $500,000 in future emotional distress.

Do I have to pay anything upfront to hire a sexual harassment lawyer at Brock & Gonzales?

No. Brock & Gonzales handles workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation cases on a contingency fee basis. You pay no attorney fees unless we recover compensation for you.

Other Case Results

Equal Pay Class Action – Notable cases:
Buckley v. Chicago Tribune, et al. – Equal Pay Class Action brought on behalf of female and African American employees of the Chicago Tribune; currently pending in the Northern District of Illinois.
Boxall, et al. v. Los Angeles Times, LLC; Tribune Publishing, et al. – Equal Pay Class Action brought on behalf of female, Latino, and African American employees of the LA Times. Settlement reached of $3,000,000.
Rose v. Vice Media – Equal Pay Class Action brought on behalf of female employee of Vice Media – settled and finally approved.
Pregnancy Discrimination/Lactation Accommodation Class Actions – Notable Cases:
Bragg v. Pacific Maritime Assn, et al. – Class Action brought on behalf of “casual” workers employed at the Port of Long Beach/Port of LA who experienced systemic pregnancy discrimination/failure to accommodate ; currently pending (co-counseled with the ACLU and Women’s Rights Project)
McDonald v. Nike Retail, Inc. – Lactation accommodation Class Action against Nike Retail Stores – currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court
Iraheta v. Starbucks – Lactation accommodation Class Action currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court
Notable Wage and Hour Results:
1. Shoff v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al. [United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 07-3289 DSF (AGRx)] (misclassification wage and hour case resulting in $16 million settlement);
Doyle v. AT&T Services, Inc. [United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 08-1275 JAH Wmc] (misclassification wage and hour case resulting in $10.5 million settlement);
3. Waters v. AT&T Services, Inc. [United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. Case No. CV 09-3983 BZ] (misclassification wage and hour case resulting in $17 million settlement);
Lita v. Bunim-Murray [Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC 350590] (overtime case against reality television company resulting in $5 million settlement);
Avery v. OCTA, TCA [Orange County Superior Court, Case No.: 07CC00004] (constitutional class action against toll road agencies resulting in over $40 million in economic benefits to class members and sweeping injunctive relief);
Morrison, et al. v. Six Flags Theme Park, Inc. [Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC 253314] (race and ethnic discrimination case resulting in settlement over $5 million);
Cinquegrani v. Department of Motor Vehicles [Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC 355720] (due process class action against the DMV resulting in $5,600,000 settlement);
Odrick v. UnionBancal Corporation [United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. CV 10 5565 SBA] (misclassification class action on behalf of 132 class members; $3,500,000 settlement); and
Mendez, et al. v. R+L Carriers, Inc., et al. [Northern District of California, Case No. CV 11-02478 CW] (meal and rest break, minimum wage claim resulting in $9,500,000 settlement)
Sexual Abuse – Assault – Notable Cases:
The Clergy Cases – Clergy I and Clergy II – steering committee member of mass action against the Los Angeles Archdiocese and Diocese of Orange for Sexual Abuse; settlement was $660 million in 2006 (LA) and $80 million (Orange)
John Doe 1-4 v. City of Los Angeles, Centurions Football – sexual hazing action brought by current and former LAPD officers who played on the Department football team the Centurions (currently pending)
Federal Court of Claims Cases – Notable Cases:
Lesko v. USA – Overtime and premium pay class action brought by Title V employees of Indian Health Services – en banc decision recently rendered and writ of certiorari will be filed this year
Published Decisions Personally Argued
Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, et al. (9th Cir. 2007) 485 F.3d 463 (police misconduct)
Macias v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 313 (police misconduct); and
Cinquegrani, Royea v. Department of Motor Vehicles for the State of California, et al. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 741 (civil rights class action; due process)
United States Supreme Court Cases Mr. Morrison Helped Brief/Second Chair
Mena v. Muehler, et al.
Sosa v. Alvarez – Alien Tort Claim action

Start your Free Case Evaluation Today

100% Confidential

See What Our Clients Say

“I have happily referred this law firm to friends of mine and family and anyone that I come across who needs professional and positive services. I will highly recommend.”

– Anthony L.

Testimonials

See What Our Clients Say

“I feel so fortunate to have found Brock & Gonzales. I worked with Aaron Brock on my recent employment case, and was impressed throughout the entire process.”

– Lindsay G.

Testimonials

Watch our Attorneys in Action