In June 2013, plaintiff Kelley James, 35, an associate attorney at the Dependency Legal Group of San Diego, went on maternity leave. The Dependency Legal Group is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) charitable organization funded by taxpayer dollars that provides legal representation to clients in the dependency court system (juvenile court). More than half of the group’s attorneys are female and the group is made up of two attorney levels, including associate attorneys, who are more experienced, expected to take larger caseloads, and have a salary of $90,000 per year, and junior associate attorneys, who take lesser caseloads and make $65,000 per year. While James was on maternity leave, a junior associate attorney in another division (North County) gave her notice, and said she obtained other employment and was leaving in one month, which was about when James was returning from maternity leave. The leaving attorney had the highest caseload of any junior associate attorney and the second highest caseload of any attorney in the group. As a result, the leaving attorney was handling an associate level caseload, but was not boosted in pay due to the lack of funding from the state, which the group relied on. During that time, there was also a hiring freeze and pay freeze, which left James as one of only four legacy associate attorneys with the group. The other attorneys were all junior associate attorneys and everyone hired afterward was hired as a junior associate attorney. James had one of the lowest caseloads of any attorney at the group and her location, prior to going on maternity leave, did not have enough cases to justify an associate attorney working there. As a result, the group wanted to move James, with her skills and expertise, to take over the leaving attorney’s position at the North County Division, which would support an associate attorney salary. If she did not want to work at the North County Division, James could have applied for a position in another division, but she would have to be rehired as a junior attorney, which she did not want to do. Ultimately, in February 2014, it was announced that the Conflict Parent Office, where James worked with 19 other attorneys, would close down due to budgetary constraints in July 2014. However, James chose not to attend a mandatory training meeting required for rehires. As a result, James was dismissed from her position when the Conflict Parent Office closed in July 2014. James sued the Dependency Legal Group of San Diego. James claimed that she suffered disparate treatment in that her employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation for expressing milk in private in violation of state and federal statutory laws. She also claimed that her employer failed to return her to the same position after returning from pregnancy leave in violation of state and federal statutory laws relating to family and medical leave, and pregnancy disability leave. She further claimed that Dependency Legal Group of San Diego failed to reimburse her for mileage expenses in relation to having to drive to a new work location. James alleged that a new mileage policy requiring an attorney to drive straight to court in the morning and not stop by the office first was introduced specifically to retaliate against her. She also alleged that her employer retaliated against her by not responding to her request to teach a law school course. In opposing a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, plaintiff’s counsel attempted to raise new claims regarding retaliation and failure to accommodate a known disability. The matter ultimately continued to trial regarding the claims of disparate treatment based on the mileage policy’s implementation and alleged loss of a teaching opportunity (and not regarding James’ transfer to the North County office). It also continued to trial based on the claims of a violation of lactation accommodation under California law only, a violation of the California Family Rights Act for failing to return James to the same physical location after returning from leave, and indemnification under California Labor Statute § 2802 regarding paying James back for the mileage to the other courthouse. Defense counsel argued that there were no adverse actions toward James. Specifically, counsel contended that it was strictly a business decision to accommodate the workload with the staff the Dependency Legal Group had and that James would have been moved regardless of whether she was on maternity leave or not. Counsel also contended that James could have gone back to the main office in Mission Valley to express milk in a private office, if she left during the court’s lunch hour break from noon to 1:30 p.m., when traffic was reasonable, if James felt that using the attorney workroom at the courthouse was unacceptable. Defense counsel further contended that James made only one complaint about lactation accommodation, even though the jury was shown numerous emails about her complaining about everything else. In addition, counsel contended that James requested that two or three other lawyers from other divisions be moved around so that she could return to her prior location. Defense counsel argued that James request to move others was excessive and that it was unlawful to do that to other employees in order to accommodate someone returning to work. Counsel added that under California law, James had to be returned to the same position she was in before she left for maternity leave and within the same geographic proximity, but that the exception was if the position no longer existed. Thus, counsel contended that, in this case, there was a junior position available, but only for a limited time until the courtroom location that James had been in previously was closed down by the state. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that although James was not provided with a private lactation room at the courthouse and that other attorneys had access to the attorney workroom that she used at the courthouse. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that because other women and nursing mothers had access to the same room James did, that it was a violation of the California Lactation Accommodation statute. However, defense counsel argued that only reasonable accommodation had to be provided, and not a separate, private room for each lactating mother. Defense counsel added that Dependency Legal Group did not have the right to modify the courthouse, which is owned by the government, and that the lactation accommodation room was back at the group’s main office., James claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the incidents. She also claimed out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $1,500 for the mileage she had to drive to the other courthouse. However, she was paid back for the mileage after the North County division closed. Thus, James sought recovery of $600,000 in general damages, including $37,300 in statutory damages regarding the alleged violation of lactation accommodation, based on her calculation that there should be a $100 per incident penalty and that she needed to lactate 373 times. She also sought recovery of $800,000 in punitive damages.