In Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, the Court of Appeal concluded that substantial evidence supported a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his cause of action for hostile work environment sexual harassment. Two male supervisors of the heterosexual male plaintiff had repeatedly called plaintiff a "queer," "faggot," "homo," and "gay porn star." (Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234.) "When respondent had an infection on his face, one of his supervisors said, in the drilling crew's presence, 'let me cum (ejaculate) on your face, it will make it clear right up.' The crew laughed. Plaintiff 'was extremely disturbed and humiliated.'" (Ibid.) The supervisor also "posted a photograph of plaintiff on a wall inside the employees' restroom. The photograph 'had a big target around plaintiff's mouth, and in the left corner it said "Give me the money shot. "'Plaintiff's counsel argued to the trial court that the target and accompanying notation 'indicate an act of oral sex.' Plaintiff was 'deeply disturbed' by the posting of the photograph: 'Every single member in his crew went in this restroom . . . and saw his picture, and they were laughing about it.'" (Ibid.) When the plaintiff tore the photograph off the wall and confronted the supervisor, the supervisor said, "'Whoever posted the picture of plaintiff, you guys quit fucking around with him because it is going to hurt his gay porn career.'" (Ibid.) The other supervisor urinated on plaintiff and "'would come up behind plaintiff and . . . spank his butt all the time.'" (Ibid.) Plaintiff told the supervisor, "'I'm not gay; don't touch me.' But the supervisor continued the behavior. Sometimes he 'would arouse himself in his overalls to get an erection' and then ask plaintiff to sit on his lap." (Id. at pp. 1234-1235.) The Taylor court reasoned that, like the harassing coworkers in Singleton, the harassing supervisors in Taylor used sex as a weapon to create a hostile work environment for the plaintiff--i.e., they "'employed attacks on plaintiff's identity as a heterosexual male as a tool of harassment.'" (Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1238.) Therefore, the Taylor court concluded that under Singleton, substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff. (Ibid.) The Taylor court disagreed with the Kelley court's reasoning that a supervisor's sexually demeaning conduct directed at an employee does not constitute sexual harassment unless a reasonable trier of fact could find it was an expression of the supervisor's sexual desire. (Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1239.) The Taylor court observed: "The Singleton holding is narrow: a heterosexual male is subjected to harassment because of sex under the FEHA when attacks on his heterosexual identity are used as a tool of harassment in the workplace, irrespective of whether the attacks are motivated by sexual desire or interest." (Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1239-1240.)