In October 2011, plaintiff Crystal Triplett, a communications manager for The Beverly Hills Hotel, started workers’ compensation leave after allegedly her right toe at work. She claimed that she was walking a lot at work and that one day, she woke up with numbness in her toe. As a result, she went out on medical leave. During her leave, Triplett asked for accommodations for when she returned to work. Specifically, she asked if she could wear tennis shoes upon her return to work, and her request was approved. However, Triplett stayed on leave and did not come back to work. She then asked if she could return to work with crutches, but due to the nature of her position, the hotel did not think it was safe for her to do so. As a result, Triplett remained on leave. Triplett then asked to return to work with a mobility scooter, which the hotel approved. While Triplett was on leave between October 2011 and March 2012, her department was reorganized, and two departments were consolidated into one. The restructuring called for the elimination of positions, including Triplett’s prior position. Thus, on March 28, 2012, Triplett was told of the elimination of her position. Triplett sued The Beverly Hills Hotel and Sajahtera Inc., which was doing business as The Beverly Hills Hotel. Triplett alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted physical disability discrimination, a failure to accommodate a physical disability, a failure to engage in an interactive process, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and a violation of Labor Code § 970. Triplett claimed the Beverly Hills Hotel, in violation of Labor Code § 970, fraudulently induced her to move from Chicago to Los Angeles by promising her indefinite employment. She also claimed that since March 2012, she had been able and willing to work at the hotel, but that the hotel refused to accommodate her disability. The Beverly Hills Hotel denied representing to Triplett that she had “indefinite employment” and claimed that it had expected Triplett to apply for the new position, but that she never did. Defense counsel argued that the Beverly Hills Hotel delivered on all expectations of the job and that the hotel participated in the interactive process by having frequent communication with Triplett about her injury and what she needed. Counsel contended that Triplett was provided with multiple reasonable accommodations and that the elimination of Triplett’s position was due to financial shortfalls of the hotel and that it had nothing to do with Triplett’s disability or injury. Defense counsel contended that Triplett was informed about the reorganization of the company and the elimination of seven positions, including hers. Counsel also contended that Triplett was informed about the availability of another position that she was slated and expected to apply for, but that she did not. Counsel further contended that even though Triplett claimed that she was able and willing to work since March 2012, she had not applied for any jobs. In response, Triplett claimed that she was never informed of the new position., Triplett sought recovery of economic, emotional distress and punitive damages.