Chapman v. Enos (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 920 is instructive as to who qualifies as a supervisor under FEHA. In Chapman the plaintiff, an investigator for the district attorney's office, sued the county and a deputy district attorney, Enos, for sexual harassment. Enos was responsible for directing the plaintiff's work and day-to-day activities. The chief investigator used feedback from Enos to evaluate the plaintiff's work performance. Despite the fact Enos had no authority to hire or fire, promote or transfer the plaintiff, the court found sufficient evidence Enos was the plaintiff's supervisor within the FEHA definition. The court explained, "while full accountability and responsibility are certainly indicia of supervisory power, they are not required elements of . . . the FEHA definition of supervisor. Indeed, many supervisors with responsibility to direct others using their independent judgment, and whose supervision of employees is not merely routine or clerical, would not meet these additional criteria though they would otherwise be within the ambit of the FEHA supervisor definition." (Chapman v. Enos, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 930, italics omitted.)