In December 2009, plaintiff Sara Valdez, 33, a lead teller at Wells Fargo’s main branch in Whittier, began to be directly supervised by a new service manager, Liliana Martinez. Valdez claimed that when she became pregnant with her eighth child, Martinez and an indirect supervisor, Jennifer Grothe, began making offensive, harassing comments to her and discriminating against her. As a result, she complained of the discrimination and harassment to the Human Resources Department via e-mail and telephone conversations twice in March 2010 and twice in September 2010. Valdez claimed that after making the complaints Martinez and Grothe retaliated against her, and the discriminating and harassing actions continued. She claimed that as a result, she was ultimately forced to quit her job on Sept. 17, 2010. Valdez sued Martinez, Grothe, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and WellsFargo Central Bank. She alleged that the actions of Martinez and Grothe constituted pregnancy discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and WellsFargo Central Bank were negligent for failing to prevent, investigate and remedy the discrimination and harassment actions, resulting in her constructive discharge. Initially, Valdez alleged Labor Code violations for denying her certain uninterrupted meal and rest breaks, but those claims were dismissed on defense counsel’s motion for a directed verdict. In addition, it was ultimately learned that there is no such entity as “WellsFargo Central Bank” and the claims against Grothe were adjudicated on defense counsel’s motion for summary adjudication. Thus, WellsFargo Central Bank and Grothe were let out of the case, and the matter proceeded to trial against Martinez and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. only. Valdez claimed that after she became pregnant with her eighth child, Martinez made comments like: “You have too many kids. You should just go home.” “You should start taking birth control pills.” and “You should get your tubes tied.” Valdez also claimed that Martinez denied her time off to seek prenatal care, threatened her with disciplinary write-ups, told her to demote herself, stood over her while she worked, sneered at her, told her to stand up repeatedly, and demeaned her in front of other employees. She further claimed that even though she told Martinez that she was in pain and needed to sit, Martinez threatened to take away her chair whenever she saw her sitting. Valdez further claimed that after Martinez found out that she had complained to human resources the first time, Martinez actually took away her chair. In addition, Valdez claimed that despite her complaints to human resources, her claims where never investigated, and the harassment and discrimination were allowed to continue, resulting in her constructive discharge. Martinez and Wells Fargo Back denied liability, and claimed that Valdez was not harassed or discriminated against. In addition, the defendants claimed that Valdez voluntarily resigned her employment., Valdez claimed that she suffered from emotional distress as a result of the actions against her. She alleged that she subsequently sought help from her church, but did not obtain professional psychiatric care. Thus, Valdez sought recovery of damages for her emotional distress, and past and future lost wages. Defense counsel contended that Valdez did not obtain professional psychiatric care, but claimed severe emotional distress from 2010 until January 2013. Thus, counsel argued that Valdez did not do enough to mitigate her damages and that Valdez’s alleged emotional distress was caused by other factors–including a criminal conviction, spousal abuse, and allegations that her husband was cheating on her.