On Sept. 3, 2016, the plaintiff, 38, a Pilates instructor at Equinox’s West Hollywood sports club, received a massage from Derek Mallard, a massage therapist who also worked at Equinox. She claimed that she was sexually battered by Mallard during the massage. She told Equinox about the incident and then commenced a leave of absence on Sept. 5, 2016. On July 27, 2017, while still out on medical leave, she was terminated from her employment. The plaintiff sued Mallard and the operator of the sports club, Equinox Holdings Inc. The plaintiff alleged that Mallard’s actions constituted sexual harassment and battery. She also alleged that Equinox’s actions constituted a failure to investigate and prevent harassment, disability discrimination, a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and a failure to engage in an interactive dialogue regarding a potential reasonable accommodation. The plaintiff claimed that she had routinely sent her clients to Mallard and had received approximately 25 prior, uneventful massages from him over approximately a 1.5- to two-year period. She claimed that she complained about the Sept. 3, 2016, massage to Equinox, but that Equinox failed to act properly. She further claimed that Equinox failed to accommodate her and that while she was out on medical leave to recover from the incident, she was wrongfully terminated. Mallard denied engaging in inappropriate conduct during the massage, and he claimed that the plaintiff thanked him for the massage after it was over. Equinox’s counsel contended that Equinox conducted a prompt and thorough investigation into the plaintiff’s complaint and then properly acted in response to it. Counsel also contended that Equinox provided the plaintiff the leave of absence she required and that Equinox only terminated the plaintiff’s employment when she had not returned to work by July 27, 2017, and it became apparent that she would not be able to return to work at any point in the foreseeable future. Counsel maintained that Equinox invited the plaintiff to reapply for her position when she was able to return to work., The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the events, she suffered emotional distress, resulting in panic attacks. She also claimed that she suffered a loss of earnings as a result of her termination. The plaintiff sought recovery of lost earnings and damages for emotional pain and suffering. Defense counsel argued that the evidence concerning the plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress was unreliable and that significant evidence indicated that any psychological or emotional that the plaintiff may suffer were caused by factors having nothing to do with the case.