Here is a fairly common scenario that we have been seen over and over again: 
An employee (let’s call her Maria), who is lately been under stress due to increased workload and/or various office frictions, goes out to lunch with her manager (let’s call him James), or that manger gives her a ride to a bus stop on his way home. During that short interaction, the manager tells her: “this is a really nice dress”. Also, knowing that she is from Mexico, Andrew asks Maria if she misses her home country and whether she would like to go back one day.
Being under a lot of stress as is, Maria starts feeling threatened by these comments and she immediately approaches HR filing a sexual harassment and discrimination complaint against her manager, claiming that (a) Andrew’s complimenting her on her dress was an inappropriate sexual advance, and (b) asking whether she planned to go back suggested that he actually wanted her to go back, which was discriminatory.
The HR department conducts an investigation, not finding sufficient evidence to support the above complaints. Andrew becomes aware of her complaints as he is being interviewed as part of the investigation into Maria’s complaints. Upon learning of HR findings, Maria becomes even more upset, develops severe anxiety symptoms and goes on medical leave.
Maria returns from leave a few months later, reporting back to Andrew. Being well aware that retaliation illegal, Andrew acts extra careful with Maria, minimizing any type of non-work related conversations with her and avoiding any type of out of office interactions at all, out of fear of being accused of discrimination or harassment again. Andrew does not try to change Maria’s job duties or her schedule, and he issues no negative feedback about her performance. Maria perceives his less friendly and more distant demeanor as retaliation. She goes back to HR and files another complaint. The company again finds no basis for this complaint.
Feeling frustrated with HR and helpless, Maria resigns from her job, intending to sue the company for discrimination, harassment and retaliation. She speaks with a number of lawyers about her potential case, but none of them want to pursue it because they all agree that (a) there is no evidence of discrimination and harassment as the statements originally made by Andrew can be reasonably interpreted as a compliment about Maria’s attire and curiosity about how she feels about her country, and fall far short of anything that could be presented as discriminatory. These lawyers also tell Maria that because her manager didn’t take any tangible action against her, such as disciplining, demoting, or terminating her, there is no evidence of retaliation, as simply not being as friendly to her as before isn’t enough to make that claim.
After realizing that she won’t be able to find an attorney to take her case, Maria applies for unemployment benefits. EDD denies her unemployment benefits application finding that she resigned “without good cause”. Thus, Maria finds herself without a job, without a case, and without unemployment benefits.
The above situation could have been easily avoided if Maria sought legal advice from a lawyer as early as possible, after Andrew originally made the statements that made her uncomfortable. That lawyer could have been able to educate Maria about what is and what isn’t discrimination and harassment, the risks of exaggerating allegations and assuming things that may or may not be true based on her manager’s conduct, what the risks and benefits of complaining to HR are, as well as whether resigning is a good idea under her specific circumstances.