In 2004, plaintiff Mary Rodriguez, a secretary for the city of Glendale’s Redevelopment Department, applied for a promotion. However, instead, a younger employee received the promotion to Office Services Supervisor and became Rodriguez’s supervisor. According to the city, in December 2006, just days after Rodriguez received a below standards evaluation rating and was told of the immediate need for improvement, Rodriguez became involved in a verbal altercation with her supervisor, which a city investigator deemed to be a potential workplace violence issue. As a result, Rodriguez’s termination was proposed, but she retired before the action became final. Rodriguez filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging age discrimination. She then filed suit against the city of Glendale in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging various causes of action. However, following the city’s demurrer, the only remaining cause of action was for age discrimination. Rodriguez contended that she was passed over for a promotion and given a poor evaluation based on her age. She further contended that the city, instead, hired someone younger for Office Services Supervisor position and that she to be terminated because she was over 50. The city denied discriminating against Rodriguez due to her age and claimed that it employed many people over the age of 50, including in the Redevelopment Department. It also claimed that the proposal to terminate Rodriguez was completely performance/conduct related. The city contended that since her hiring in 1981, Rodriguez was counseled in her annual evaluations about the need for her to improve her work performance and her working relationships with fellow employees. The plaintiff’s supervisor further claimed that she further warned Rodriguez about her attitude and working relationship in the 1.5 years after receiving the promotion., Rodriguez claimed that she suffered emotional and mental distress, as well as a loss of earnings from her early retirement, as a result of the actions of the city of Glendale and its managers, agents or others working for it. Thus, Rodriguez sought recovery of $1.5 million in damages for her past and future lost earnings, as estimated by her expert economist. She further asked the jury to award appropriate general damages based upon its own discretion and the evidence presented of her emotional and mental distress. Defense counsel argued that Rodriguez was owed zero damages for lost earnings because the proposal to terminate her was based on legitimate business reasons. In addition, the city claimed that it did not cause Rodriguez any emotional or mental distress.