In October 2012, plaintiff Christine Smith, the fleet services administrative coordinator for the Quality of Life Department for the city of Redlands, was demoted to her former position on the day she returned from a medical leave following a serious automobile accident. Approximately 33 days before her accident, Quality of Life Director Fred Cardenas promoted Smith to fleet services administrative coordinator. Under her new position, Smith was in charge of maintenance of the city’s entire fleet of vehicles and equipment. However, Smith was injured in an automobile accident and had to take nine weeks of medical leave. Upon her return, in October 2012, Cardenas met with Smith and her union representative regarding invoice issues that he could not substantiate. Smith was then demoted to her former position. Smith took a stress leave in November 2012 and June 2013, claiming an inability to work under Cardenas. She also requested to be transferred to a position that required no direct or indirect contact with Cardenas. The city attempted to find a position for Smith that would require no direct or indirect contact with Cardenas, but no such position could be found. Due to her professed inability to work in her current position, which required contact with Cardenas, Smith was ultimately terminated in 2015. Smith sued her employer, the city of Redlands. She alleged that her demotion and Cardenas’ conduct constituted harassment and discrimination related to a disability, discrimination based on her taking medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, interference with her FMLA rights, and constructive termination. She also alleged that the city was liable for Cardenas’ actions and that the city failed to accommodate her disability. Smith claimed that 33 days before her accident, Cardenas promoted her to fleet services administrative coordinator and that in those 33 days that she was on the job, she was not counseled or written up for any performance deficiencies. She alleged that on the day she returned to work, she experienced retaliatory conduct, which included Cardenas’ violating the city’s bullying policy by meeting with her and her union representative and making allegations regarding invoice issues that he could not substantiate. Smith claimed that although she rebutted the invoice allegations with documentary evidence, she was demoted that day. Thus, she claimed that her demotion following a nine-week medical leave was a violation of her FMLA rights. Smith further claimed that she faced additional bullying and intimidation from Cardenas while working, and was excluded and isolated from the work activity of the department. She alleged that as a result, Cardenas’ conduct constituted discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, which forced her to take a stress leave in November 2012 and June 2013. The plaintiff’s employment investigations expert testified about the city’s investigation of Smith’s grievances. He opined that the city did not follow standard practices, or its own policies and procedures, in investigating Smith’s grievances following her demotion. Specifically, the expert testified that the city failed to investigate all of Smith’s grievances, and failed to interview the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator as to the grievance that was being investigated. He further testified that the city failed to take steps to prevent bullying and workplace violence from occurring. In addition, the employment investigations expert opined that the attorney used for the investigation was not neutral or impartial, in that the investigating attorney did ongoing work for the city in other areas and had told witnesses in the investigation that he was representing the city. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, defense counsel moved for nonsuit, claiming there was a lack of evidence. The court ultimately dismissed Smith’s disability-related claims and constructive-termination claim. The case then went forward on the claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation for taking medical leave, as protected by the FMLA; interference with FMLA rights; wrongful termination; and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. Defense counsel contended that while Smith was out on medical leave following the automobile accident, the city discovered many, major mistakes that had been made. Counsel contended that since Smith was still on probation in her new position at the time the mistakes were discovered, the city returned Smith to her former position in accordance with the city’s memorandum of understanding rules. Thus, defense counsel argued that there was no discrimination, harassment, or retaliation against Smith for taking FMLA leave and that the city did not interfere with Smith’s FMLA rights. In addition, counsel argued that the city did not wrongfully terminate Smith., Smith claimed that she suffered emotional distress, including continuing anxiety and depression, as a result of the events that she underwent while at the city, starting with her return from FMLA leave. She also claimed she suffered a loss of income as a result of the demotion and eventual termination from her employment. Thus, Smith sought between $300,000 and $500,000 for her loss of wages and pain and suffering. The defense’s psychiatry expert testified about how he performed a psychiatric evaluation of Smith and reviewed previous doctors’ evaluations. He opined that while Smith may have suffered from anxiety and depression during her time working with the city, it was Smith’s own personality characteristics, not her interactions with Cardenas, that would likely trigger similar anxiety reactions in the future. Accordingly, defense counsel argued there could be no future emotional distress for Smith in relation to her alleged treatment by the city.