In 2004, plaintiff Lin Ouyang began work as a full-time a computer programmer for Achem Industry America Inc., an adhesive tape manufacturer and distributor. Ouyang claimed that she eventually complained to the Labor Commissioner about not being paid overtime. However, she claimed that after making her complaint, she was subjected to constant yelling, was given a suboptimal performance review, and was demoted. At the end of January 2012, she went on leave, but did not return to Achem. She ultimately resigned officially in November 2013. Ouyang sued Achem Industry America Inc. Ouyang, who appeared pro se, alleged that she was promised a certain wage when she was hired, but that she did not receive it. She also alleged she was not paid for overtime or meal breaks, and was not allowed to have rest periods. In addition, she alleged that when she complained about her wages to the Labor Commissioner, she was retaliated against in the form of yelling, a suboptimal performance review, and a demotion. Thus, Ouyang claimed that Achem failed to pay all earned wages in violation of Labor Code § 204, failed to provide overtime compensation, failed to provide accurate itemized statements, and failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods. She also claimed Achem created a hostile work environment in the form of retaliation and discrimination in violation of public policy and Labor Code § 98.6. In addition, Ouyang claimed that Achem’s actions constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress, a breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and unfair business practices. Defense counsel contended that Ouyang was administratively exempt on her wage and hour claims. Counsel contended that there was no private right of action under Ouyang’s Labor Code § 204 claims (underpayment of wages) and that Ouyang’s claim of breach of a written contract regarding an immigration form was preempted by federal immigration law. As such, both the Labor Code § 204 and breach of contract claims were excluded in motions in limine. Defense counsel argued that there was no promise to pay Ouyang a higher rate. Counsel also argue that the alleged conduct claimed by Ouyang — i.e. the alleged yelling, poor performance review and demotion — did not amount to an adverse employment action., Ouyang claimed that the constant yelling and refusal to pay her the promised wages, as well as the negative performance review, all injured her psyche. Thus, Ouyang sought recovery of emotional distress and punitive damages.