In Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, a sexual harassment case, the trial court denied a supervisor's motion for a new trial even though it indicated it would not have come to the same result as the jury. The trial court, however, had also stated, "This appears to be a case . . . where different minds could fairly come to different conclusions." (Id. at p. 414.) The Court held that this constituted an implied finding that there was sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict, and that the jury was reasonable in believing the witnesses it had believed in reaching the verdict. In such circumstance, the trial court properly declined to substitute its own judgment for that of the jury. (Id. at p. 414.) The reviewing court upheld the $ 125,000 damage award in a sexual harassment case when the plaintiff's wage loss was only about $ 7,000 and her medical bills were about $ 320, and the remainder of the award was for emotional distress. Furthermore, the court held that her lay testimony about the emotional and physical effects of the harassment were sufficient to support the damages award and no expert testimony was necessary. (Id. at p. 407.) In short, Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co., exemplifies the distinction between managing agent and mere supervisor. There, a supervisor was the highest-ranking person in the employer's Southern California office and had immediate and direct control over the plaintiff, including the authority to terminate her employment. (Kelly-Zurian, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at pp. 406, 421-422.) Nevertheless, the supervisor was not a managing agent within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294, because he did not have authority to change or establish the business policy for the company's Southern California offices. (Id. at p. 422.) Rather, such policies were established by the corporate headquarters in St. Louis. (Ibid.)