HOW DOES THE COURT DECIDE BETWEEN TWO DRAMATICALLY- DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE TRUTH?

Martin Ruff, a forty-something CEO in midlife crisis, flirts with a younger female executive, Alexandria Plummet, who reports to him. This, despite being faithfully married for 23 years to his high school sweetheart.

Soon, there were a litany of lies, deceptions, romantic dinners, frequent after-hour phone calls, and gifts willingly accepted by each. Ironically, the relationship never reached sexual consummation.

During the course of this atypical relationship, Plummet's daughter committed suicide and her addict husband emptied their bank accounts. The now emotionally-fragile Plummet sought clarity from her best friend, Diane, a wealthy twice-divorced cougar. Her advice? "Sue the bastard for sexual harassment with the nastiest lawyer you can find. Trust me, they all cave to save their butt and avoid the publicity."

Soon, Plummet filed a massive sexual harassment suit against the company and Ruff personally, She offered recorded copies of their past phone calls as her primary basis of the truth.

Does the harassment suit become a public spectacle?

How does each attempt to survive by offering ompeting versions of the truth?

Are there friends-and-family collateral damage to the unwillingly participants drawn into the tawdry affair?

In the end, does anybody really win?

The twist? The entire story is told from a first-person male point of view.