In Jacobus v. Krambo Corp. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1096, an employee successfully sued his employer under Labor Code section 2802 for indemnification for legal costs of successfully defending a coworker's sexual harassment claim. (Jacobus, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1103.) In the underlying action, the accused employee conceded that he had a friendly relationship with the coworker, which included sexual bantering with her. The two of them discussed their sex lives and shared sexually explicit material at work. They also socialized outside of work. (Id. at pp. 1099-1100.) The jury found the employee's conduct towards the co-worker was not sexual harassment because it was consensual. (Id. at p. 1103.) On appeal, the Jacobus court held that the employee's conduct was within the scope of employment; it was "simply part of the social intercourse that occasionally occurs in modern office settings." (Id. at p. 1103.) The court noted the facts also suggested the coworker fabricated a claim of sexual harassment to deflect a negative performance review by the employee. (Jacobus, supra, at p. 1104.) Accordingly, "in light of all the circumstances, the mutual exchange of sexual materials between the employee and the coworker was broadly incidental to their employment," and the employee was entitled to indemnification of his legal costs of successfully defending the harassment claim. (Ibid.) The Court concluded that an employee who was accused of sexually harassing another employee was entitled to indemnity under Labor Code section 2802. Russell Jacobus was the chief financial officer for an investment banking firm (firm). Jacobus and one of the secretaries had a friendly relationship that included frequent sexual bantering. They discussed their personal lives, including their sexual encounters. Jacobus shared erotic, sexually explicit material with the secretary at work, including stories he had written or co-written and faxes containing sexual material. Once, while playing a computer game, he suggested they play a strip poker version and touched her thigh. (Id. at pp. 1099-1100.) After Jacobus and a vice president criticized the secretary's job performance, she claimed Jacobus had sexually harassed her and sued the firm and Jacobus for sexual harassment. The firm refused to defend Jacobus and settled with the secretary. (Jacobus, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1099-1100.) Jacobus went to trial. The jury found that Jacobus's conduct did not constitute sexual harassment because the secretary had consented to their exchanges. (Id. at pp. 1099, 1103.) Jacobus subsequently sued his employer for indemnity under section 2802. The appellate court concluded that Jacobus's acts were within the scope of his employment. The court explained, "in light of the verdict in the underlying action, Jacobus's conduct must necessarily be viewed as something other than sexual misconduct or sexual harassment." (Jacobus, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1103.) The court concluded that in light of the "verdict and what appears to be the entirely consensual interchange between" Jacobus and the secretary that the conduct of Jacobus was "simply part of the social intercourse that occasionally occurs in modern office settings." (Ibid.) The court explained that "social interactions among employees, including sharing of private or personal information, are broadly incidental to the enterprise of an employer" and that the "consensual sharing of sexual materials with the secretary was no more unusual or startling than other forms of everyday conversation among coworkers." (Id. at pp. 1103-1104.) In addition, the facts suggested the secretary "developed her sexual harassment claim to gain an advantage in her employment." (Id. at p. 1104.) The court concluded that "the risk that one worker may accuse another of sexual harassment to deflect an adverse performance review is a risk inherent in employment, . . . If the employer chooses not to defend the accused employee in the lawsuit, then the employer must pay the defense costs of the exonerated employee." (Ibid.)