In 2015, plaintiff Ruchika Bharadwaj, an accountant-auditor, was demoted from her position with the county of Los Angeles. Bharadwaj previously suffered an acute stroke in 2013. She took medical leave for approximately eight months and returned to work in 2014. However, when she returned, she found that it took her longer to type reports and process information as a result of her recovery from the stroke. Bharadwaj asked to be accommodated by having more time to complete her audits, but the request was refused. Instead, Bharadwaj’s supervisor sent her for a psychiatric evaluation, which concluded that Bharadwaj was incapable of performing work and should go on disability pension for psychological reasons. Bharadwaj refused, and asked to keep working in her same position. However, the county demoted her in 2015. Bharadwaj sued the county of Los Angeles, alleging that its actions constituted disability discrimination and failure to accommodate in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. She also alleged that the county retaliated against her and created a hostile work environment. Bharadwaj claimed that she was constantly harassed by supervisors, such as being told that she was "moving too slowly," that "nobody wants to work with [her]" and that she "should just retire." She also claimed that she was retaliated against in the form of being given unreasonable deadlines and unfair evaluations at work. Bharadwaj alleged that even though she was a high level accountant-auditor, the county demoted her to a clerical position where she did not even have a computer at her desk. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the county failed to accommodate Bharadwaj by allowing her more time to complete her audits and retaliated against her by forcing her to undergo a psychologic evaluation and demotion. Counsel also contended that the evaluation was predetermined, as there were emails back and forth with Bharadwaj’s supervisor and the psychiatric evaluator. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that the county claimed that it had Bharadwaj undergo a psychiatric evaluation because Bharadwaj was allegedly displaying different behavior, but that when the county was asked to detail the alleged “different” behavior, it was unable to do so. Defense counsel denied that Bharadwaj was harassed at work or that the county gave Bharadwaj unreasonable deadlines. Counsel asserted that the county had legitimate employment concerns and that the county had to comply with audit deadlines when it denied Bharadwaj’s request for additional time. Defense counsel also asserted that while the county admitted to having Bharadwaj undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation, it was for legitimate reasons because Bharadwaj returned to work in 2014 with severe medical restrictions and could not perform her essential job functions — even with an accommodation. Counsel contended that the county had 22 interactive process meetings with Bharadwaj and that it had accommodated Bharadwaj by significantly lowering her workload, but that Bharadwaj still could not perform her job functions. For instance, counsel contended that Bharadwaj could not remember the routine audit process and that Bharadwaj’s audits were full of errors, which resulted in her colleagues having to re-do her audits. Defense counsel asserted that as a result Bharadwaj’s work performance, the county had her undergo a fitness-for-duty examination, where the medical provider who performed the examination found that Bharadwaj could not do her essential job functions as an auditor-accountant and that all Bharadwaj could do was "clerical-type" work. Counsel asserted that as a result, the county had a legitimate business reason to medically demote Bharadwaj in 2015 because Bharadwaj could not, and would never be able to, perform her essential job functions as an accountant-auditor. However, counsel contended that despite the demotion, the county continued to pay Bharadwaj the full accountant-auditor salary for the following two years., Bharadwaj claimed she suffered emotional distress as a result of being subjected to constant harassment and given unfair evaluations at work. She also claimed that she was demoted to a clerical position, causing her to suffer a pay reduction compared to what she was earning as a high level auditor. Bharadwaj sought recovery of lost earnings, and damages for her emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel disputed the amount of damages Bharadwaj alleged. Counsel contended that even though the county medically demoted Bharadwaj, it continued to pay her the full accountant-auditor salary for the next two years.