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

Their relationship began "somewhat" innocently. A female, single-mother and executive brought a tiny gift home from a Paris vacation to a married male coworker.

The gift raised questions in the man's mind.

Why did she give it to him?

Was there an implied meaning behind the gesture?

After sharing a few casual afternoon lattes come several flirtatious dinners and after-hour phone calls the relationship grew more complex. The woman experienced two horrific events: her husband emptied their bank account and left her for another man, and her teenage daughter committed suicide.

The 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."

Plummet sues the company and Ruff for workplace sexual harassment.

Do the accused attempt to negotiate a per court settlement?

What is the unintended collateral damage to friends-and-family?

In the end, does anybody really win?