In 2008, plaintiff Cynthia Slayton was hired as an interim director of the Copper Mountain Community College Foundation, the school’s main fundraising department. She occupied the position for over four months and was then made full-time director on a yearly contractual basis. Slayton claimed that after she aired issues at board meetings about irregularities with district funds and taxes, school board trustees held a closed session meeting about her job performance. She also claimed that when she went out on stress-related medical leave between October 2010 and January 2011, she returned to find that her work responsibilities had been reduced. Following the 2010-11 school term, Slayton’s contract was not renewed. Slayton sued the Copper Mountain Community College District and the Copper Mountain Community College Foundation. Slayton alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted retaliation, disability discrimination and violations of the state’s Brown Act. Slayton claimed that when she aired issues at board meetings about irregularities with district funds and taxes, it led to the defendants retaliating against her by reducing her work responsibilities after she returned from medical leave. She also claimed that the school board trustees discussed her job performance in closed meetings and that the conversations were not properly placed on an agenda. Slayton alleged that when she complained about these violations of the state’s Brown Act at the open sessions of school board meetings, she was retaliated against further for being a whistleblower, in that her non-renewal as director of the Copper Mountain Community College Foundation was a form of retaliation on the part of the defendants. The Copper Mountain Community College District and the Copper Mountain Community College Foundation claimed they acted accordingly and accommodated Slayton’s disability by granting her medical leave, and upon her return, they reduced Slayton’s hours at the request of her doctor. Thus, they alleged that the request to reduce Slayton’s hours resulted in reduced responsibilities and that this reduction of responsibilities was not an adverse employment action. The district and foundation also denied having a closed session meeting about Slayton’s job performance. Thus, they claimed they did not violate the state’s Brown Act. The district and foundation also denied being motivated by inappropriate reasons in their decision to not renew Slayton’s contract. Instead, they claimed that their motive to not renew Slayton’s contract was strictly job-related, in that Slayton did not improve on deficiencies pointed out to her at her August 2010 performance evaluation., Slayton claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the adverse actions against her, as well as suffered a loss of earnings from her termination. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Slayton $500,000 in total lost earnings and $250,000 in emotional distress damages. Defense counsel argued that Slayton’s contract was not renewed for legitimate business reasons, so Slayton was owed no damages.