In April 2013, plaintiff Shawnda Stewart, a black, senior information systems analyst for the county of Los Angeles, applied for the position of principal information systems analyst. Stewart initially applied for the position of principal information systems analyst in 2009, but she did not receive the promotion. She then applied for the position again in 2010 and 2011, but each time she was not given the promotion. As a result, she sued the county of Los Angeles, alleging the county discriminated against her based on race by failing to promote her to a principal information systems analyst. The matter ultimately settled in August 2013. However, prior to the settlement, while the suit was ongoing, Stewart again applied for the principal information systems analyst position in April 2013. However, she was again not chosen for the promotion. One month later, she again applied for the promotion, but was once again not promoted. Thus, Stewart claimed that she was retaliated against for filing the prior lawsuit. Stewart sued her employer, the county of Los Angeles; the head of Information Technology for the Department of Health Services, Kevin Lynch; and Lynch’s subordinate, the manager of a major health project that Stewart was working on at the time of the promotion requests, Pamela Griffith. Stewart alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted retaliation. Lynch and Griffith were ultimately dismissed from the case before trial by means of a motion for summary adjudication of issues. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against the county only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the positions started to be filled in May 2013 and that there were approximately eight appointments from the list of qualified candidates between May 2013 and the end of 2014. Counsel also contended that it was conceded that Stewart had good, if not better, qualifications than other employees, but that the managers thought others were “better suited” for the needs of the position and that Stewart “did not fit the mold.” Defense counsel contended that each of the appointments made was because of the qualifications and background of the person appointed. Thus, counsel contended that the times Stewart was not chosen for the promotion were not because of Stewart’s prior lawsuit., Stewart started her position with the county in 2007, but she was denied a promotion in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013. She claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of not getting the promotion. She also claimed that her depression, or depressive indications, worsened each time she was not promoted. Stewart subsequently underwent treatment from emotional distress and depression through her Kaiser plan. Thus, Stewart sought recovery of lost earnings, specifically the pay differential between her current position and the promoted position. She also sought recovery of damages for her past and future emotional pain and suffering.