In March 2013, plaintiff Carl Lomas, 47, a sales estimator for Viking Insulation Co., which installs insulation in commercial, residential and multi-family structures throughout Southern California, went out on medical leave. Lomas claimed that for several years he worked in close proximity to one of the officers of the company who allegedly made inappropriate comments about him and his family, as well as other derogatory comments. He claimed that the years of harassing remarks led to a mental disability and caused him to become ill. He contended that he asked for a different desk assignment and to be assigned to a different supervisor so that he would not be around the alleged offending officer, but that the accommodation request was refused. Lomas alleged that as a result, his physician placed him on disability and he began taking medical leave in March 2013. However, Viking ultimately terminated him in June 2013. Lomas sued Viking Insulation Co. He alleged that Viking’s actions constituted, among other things, a failure to interact and accommodate, and discrimination based on medical conditions, thereby creating a hostile work environment. He also alleged that Viking retaliated against him based on his medical conditions and wrongfully terminated him. Lomas claimed that Viking knew he was on disability leave in June 2013 because he filed workers’ compensation documentation. However, he claimed that Viking terminated him by placing him on COBRA and canceling his health insurance and that Viking did this so that it would not be obligated to pay his health insurance premiums. Lomas further claimed that Viking never inquired whether or not he abandoned his job, or informed him of the same, and that Viking just assumed that he would not return to work because he claimed his profit sharing while out on a disability leave. However, he claimed that he was entitled to withdraw his profit sharing while out on a disability leave. Defense counsel disputed Lomas’ claims, and argued that Lomas abandoned his employment and generated an unfounded lawsuit. Counsel contended that when Lomas went out on medical leave, Lomas’ physician would send Viking doctor’s notes, seeking additional medical leave and stating that Lomas would return in a week or two, but that after a few weeks, the notes stopped and Lomas never returned to work. Thus, counsel argued that Lomas was notified that, under company policy, Lomas would be responsible to pay his health insurance premiums because he had been absent for 90 days. Defense counsel also denied that there was a hostile work environment, and contended that Lomas, himself, was a harasser and used foul language on a regular basis. Specifically, defense counsel contended that in January 2013, Lomas was disciplined, by being written up, for using foul language to a female office manager. Counsel contended that it was very rare for Viking to write an employee up and that Lomas was upset about being disciplined, so Lomas initiated the subject lawsuit to seek revenge. In responds, Lomas acknowledged using foul language around the female office manager in January 2013, but he claimed that she tried to get him fired with false allegations. Lomas also denied abandoning his job due to receiving a written warning and claimed that he had no issues with the office manager prior to being going out on disability leave., Lomas claimed that he developed a mental disability and became ill due to the constant harassment at work. He also claimed further emotional distress as a result of being fired from where he worked since 2001. In addition, he claimed that he suffered a loss of income as a result of the termination. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that as a result of Lomas’ medical condition, Lomas was unable to complete his testimony after appearing for one day. As a result, the plaintiff’s medical expert testified on Lomas’ behalf. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award Lomas $2.6 million in economic and non-economic emotional-distress damages.