On Sept. 14, 2011, plaintiff Kareemah Mateen-Bradford, 46, the director of human resources for the city of Compton, was terminated from her position. Mateen-Bradford had told Compton city manager Willie Norfleet that she felt discriminated against and harassed by city council member Barbara Calhoun, based on negative comments made during a televised city council meeting. Later that day, Jan. 5, 2011, Mateen-Bradford was placed on paid administrative leave. Norfleet then issued Mateen-Bradford a notice of intent to terminate on Sept. 1, 2011, alleging there were performance deficiencies. Mateen-Bradford was provided a Skelly hearing on Sept. 14, 2011, and she was given the opportunity to refute the allegations against her. The hearing was presided over by Norfleet, and Mateen-Bradford was issued a termination letter that same day. In August 2012, Mateen-Bradford sued the city of Compton, Calhoun, Norfleet and Mayor Eric Perrodin. Mateen-Bradford alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted gender discrimination, harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In September 2014, Mateen-Bradford had an administrative appeal hearing regarding her termination before retired Justice Candace Cooper, of Jams. On Oct. 20, 2014, Cooper determined that the city did not have sufficient cause to terminate Mateen-Bradford, and she ordered that Mateen-Bradford be reinstated with back pay. Mateen-Bradford returned to work in November 2014, and she continued working through the time of trial in April 2016. Norfleet and Perrodin were dismissed from the case, and Calhoun was granted summary judgment. The matter continued to trial against the city only. On April 24, 2016, the jury rendered a defense verdict, finding in favor of the city on the FEHA gender discrimination and retaliation claims. The next day, the city placed Mateen-Bradford on administrative leave. Mateen-Bradford appealed the defense verdict, and it was overturned. The matter was sent back to the trial court for a retrial of the retaliation and gender-discrimination claims. During the retrial, Mateen-Bradford claimed that her 2011 termination was in retaliation for reporting discrimination and harassment by Calhoun. She also claimed that the alleged performance deficiencies were false and pretextual. Mateen-Bradford further claimed that the gender discrimination was based on differential treatment in the termination process. The city’s counsel argued that Mateen-Bradford’s termination was not motivated by unlawful discrimination or retaliation and that the city reasonably believed that Mateen-Bradford’s termination was justified. Counsel further argued that the city may have been wrong about having cause for Mateen-Bradford’s termination, but that the city did not have a gender-based discriminatory or retaliatory motive or intent against her., Mateen-Bradford worked for the city for 20 years prior to her termination. She claimed that while she worked as a human resources director, she received very positive performance evaluations from the city of Compton in 2006, but she did not have any subsequent performance reviews. After her termination, Mateen-Bradford attempted to obtain other work and had an offer from the city of Inglewood, but she claimed that the offer was later withdrawn due to budget constraints. She also claimed that, thereafter, she was unable to secure other employment. Mateen-Bradford claimed that she suffered emotional distress since the time of her termination. Mateen-Bradford sought recovery of damages related to her emotional distress from the time of her termination through April 24, 2016. (Her damages were limited because a second lawsuit for retaliation and other claims were filed because the city placed Mateen-Bradford on administrative leave the day after the city received a defense verdict following the first trial.)