In November 2009, plaintiff Renee Cortez, a woman in her 20s, was a district eligibility team lead for Gardener Group LLC, a company that finds public insurance for uninsured patients, when she notified the company that she was pregnant and went on pregnancy leave. When she returned from her leave in March 2010, Gardener Group notified Cortez that it made the decision to eliminate the district eligibility team lead position. Thus, Cortez’s employment ended. Cortez sued Gardener Group. Cortez alleged that the defendant was negligent in denying her reinstatement following her pregnancy leave; discriminating against her on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth and gender; and retaliating against her on basis of requesting or taking pregnancy leave. Cortez alleged that Gradener Group was liable for waiting time penalties and wrongfully denied overtime and meal and rest periods. In addition, she claimed the company’s actions constituted wrongful termination, unfair competition and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Cortez claimed that she was initially hired by Gardener Group as a patient advocate representative on March 23, 2009, and then was promptly promoted to the position of district eligibility team lead. However, she claimed that when she attempted to return to work after her pregnancy leave, she was denied a position. Thus, she claimed the company wrongfully terminated her based on her pregnancy. Gardner Group denied any discrimination against Cortez and claimed that she was terminated due to legitimate business reasons — the poor financial condition of the company at the time of its decision to eliminate the district eligibility team lead position. Defense counsel moved for summary judgment on the meal and rest period causes of action, and the motion was granted. Thus, the court ruled that the jury was to decide on the claims of failure to reinstate; discrimination on the basis of gender, pregnancy and childbirth; retaliation for requesting or taking pregnancy leave; unpaid overtime; and waiting time penalties., Cortez claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the termination and difficulty finding employment after she lost her job. Thus, she sought recovery of approximately $570,000 in total damages, including $500,000 for her emotional distress, $65,000 for back pay, and the remaining amount for overtime pay at one hour per week for 24 weeks, plus waiting time penalties. Defense counsel contended that Cortez’s claims were not credible, and presented evidence of her falsified resume and evidence calling into question Cortez’s testimony about her marriage. Counsel argued that Cortez testified that her marriage, like most marriages generally, had its ups and downs, but that evidence showed that, in fact, Cortez had applied for restraining orders against her husband due to alleged repeated incidents of spousal and child battery perpetrated by her husband against her and their child.