In February 2015, claimant Alina Sorling, a food-service technician who worked on Mercy Medical Center’s Redding campus, asked to return to work after having been on medical leave due to a severe illness that left her with vision loss. While she was off work, she successfully trained to perform everyday work tasks, such as cashiering, grilling, cleaning and stocking. She also mastered the skills needed to continue independent living. Sorling provided her employer a list of accommodations that she, or the California Department of Rehabilitation, could provide to ensure she could accomplish her duties. Mercy Medical Center rejected Sorling’s suggested accommodations and fired her in June 2015, citing a vision requirement and claiming that it could not safely re-employ her. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, acting in Sorling’s behalf, sued Mercy Medical Center’s operator, Dignity Health. The EEOC alleged that Dignity Health’s actions constituted violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sorling intervened in the lawsuit, alleged that Dignity Health’s actions constituted violations of the ADA, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Government Code § 12940, the California Unfair Business Practices Act § 17200 et seq., and California public policy. Sorling claimed that, between February 2015 and May 2015, she told her employer that equipment such as a talking digital thermometer, a talking cash register, a bar code scanner, a talking credit card terminal and an iPhone could help her do the same work she had done before. She also claimed that she asked Dignity Health to work with an analyst from the California Department of Rehabilitation, who could visit the premises and identify additional appropriate accommodations. Sorling and the EEOC claimed that Dignity Health refused to allow the analyst to perform a workplace-accommodation assessment and rejected the suggested accommodations. Sorling further claimed that Dignity Health ultimately fired her, citing a vision requirement that she had previously never been tested for in her 10 years of employment. Defense counsel contended that, despite months of time and effort, Dignity Health was not able to provide an accommodation to adequately address Sorling’s particular needs without comprising her safety and the safety of others., The EEOC, acting on behalf of Sorling, sought recovery of future lost wages and expenses, and other compensatory damages. It also sought punitive damages and injunctive relief designed to prevent such discrimination in the future.