On May 21, 2013, plaintiff John Morrison, a package car driver in his early 40s, was terminated from his employment with the United Parcel Service in Gardena. Morrison’s manager, Len Hazlewood, previously complained that Morrison had threatened him, resulting in Morrison’s termination in May 2013. As a result, Morrison filed a grievance with his union, but at the time of the procedure, he was suffering from a prior work-related injury that restricted his ability to perform his job. Thus, when UPS approved Morrison’s reinstatement on Aug. 23, 2013, he was permitted to remain out on a medical leave of absence. In October 2013, Morrison’s workers’ compensation physician informed him that he could return to work with limitations, but that he could not resume his employment at UPS as a package car driver. The report indicated that Morrison could not lift more than 25 pounds in his capacity as a UPS employee. UPS initiated its accommodation procedure, and the company’s regional human resource manager met with Morrison in December 2013, and again in February 2014, to discuss Morrison’s work restrictions. The human resource manager allegedly searched for available positions within the company that matched Morrison’s qualifications after each meeting. In May 2014, UPS’s human resource manager identified a “combination” sorter/preloader position and encouraged Morrison to bid on the role. Due to his seniority, Morrison won the bid, but could not immediately fill the position due to his . As a result, the human resource manager agreed to reserve the position while Morrison treated with his doctor. When Morrison returned to work one year later, on Aug. 12, 2014, he declined to return to his previous position as a package car driver, but instead accepted the combination sorter/preloader position. Morrison sued United Parcel Service Inc. for defamation, disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process. He also sued his former manager, Len Hazlewood, for defamation. Morrison denied threatening Hazlewood, and alleged that his reputation was tarnished by Hazlewood’s claims. He claimed that UPS discriminated against him on the basis of a disability because he was restricted to lifting a maximum of 25 pounds in August 2013. He also claimed that he was terminated as punishment for seeking medical attention after a prolonged leave of absence, that UPS failed to accommodate his disability, and that UPS failed to engage in the interactive process by placing him in a lower-paying job than the one he previously held. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that in February 2014, Morrison found a job that met his accommodation restrictions, but that the job was affiliated with a different division of his union. Counsel contended that UPS refused to consider Morrison for the position because of differences in its collective bargaining agreement, that UPS’s failure to accommodate in February 2014 was discriminatory based on a disability, and that UPS allowed non-disabled employees to transfer between unions. Further, plaintiff’s counsel contended that when Morrison’s employer eventually found him a “suitable” position, UPS did not accommodate his disability, but forced him to increase his lifting capacity from 25 to 70 pounds. Defense counsel argued that Morrison was terminated for a legitimate business reason, that UPS had a reason to believe that Morrison had threatened his manager, and that UPS acted in good faith and fair dealing by reinstating Morrison’s employment. Counsel also argued that UPS engaged in the interactive process, that UPS held meetings with Morrison to assess his future employment capacity at the company, and that UPS accommodated Morrison’s work restrictions by holding the combination sorter/preloader position for him during Morrison’s medical leave of absence. Thus, defense counsel requested summary judgment from the court on the issue of Morrison’s failure-to-accommodate claims stemming from the February 2014 incident. Midway through trial, the court determined that Morrison could not have taken a job with a different union, as it would violate his collective bargaining agreement., Morrison claimed that he did not receive back pay after his termination and that he was not reinstated to a similarly paid position after the accommodation process. Thus, he claimed he suffered economic damages because he was compensated at a lower rate in his current position than he was as a driver. Morrison also claimed that his reputation was damaged as a result of defamation by his employer. Thus, Morrison sought recovery of past and future lost earnings. He also sought punitive damages from both defendants.