In July 2012, plaintiff Cinthya Lara, a Latina baggage screener in her 20s, was assigned to a new supervisor, Raylene Maldonado, at Covenant Aviation Security LLC. Lara claimed that after being assigned to the new supervisor, Maldonado immediately started picking on her, and treating her differently and more harshly than other employees. As a result, Lara complained to the company’s Human Resources Department on July 9, 2012, and again on July 12, 2012. After the second complaint, human resources contacted Maldonado’s supervisor about the situation and then, on July 16, 2012, emailed Maldonado’s supervisor a summary of notes from the meeting with Lara. The next day, on July 17, 2012, Maldonado told Lara that her shoes were not in compliance with company regulations and that Lara had to clock out. Lara asked if she could wait to work that day until her mother brought her another pair of shoes, but Maldonado insisted that she clock out. As a result, Lara asked to speak with the terminal manager, as well as her Union representative, but the terminal manager told her she had to do what Maldonado said. Lara then tossed her company duty phone and walked out. On her way out, Lara met her former supervisor, whom she relayed the events to, and was told to go to human resources and wait for them to open, as it was early in the morning. By that time, Lara’s mother had brought her the other pair of boots. Lara spoke to the same human resources specialist that she had previously complained to about Maldonado, and the specialist told Lara to clock in, put her other boots on, and go back to work. Maldonado ultimately complained about Lara’s behavior during the incident. The company initiated an investigation into the incident and the results of the investigation were provided to an executive committee. On July 31, 2012, the executive committee determined to terminate Lara from her position for insubordination and workplace violence. Lara sued Covenant Aviation Security LLC and Maldonado. Lara alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted race discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation. Lara contended that she was a good employee and that once Maldonado was assigned as her supervisor, Maldonado started picking on her. At the start of each day, the three female screeners, including Lara, participated in a guard mount, in which Maldonado would inspect them and then give them, and update them on, assignments. Two of the female screeners were married to each other and were employed by the company long-term, and all three screeners did not previously work with Maldonado. Lara claimed that during the guard mounts, Maldonado would criticize her appearance by making comments about her uniform, hair and fingernails, as well as questioned whether her appearance was in compliance with company policy. She also claimed that Maldonado would criticize her appearance throughout the course of the day. Lara alleged that all three female screeners were given the harshest assignments in the terminal and that Maldonado was unfair in rotating them. She claimed that one week before she made her complaints to human resources, one of the other female screeners also complained to human resources about being singled out and mistreated by Maldonado. She also claimed that two other women, both Asian, also complained about Maldonado and that Maldonado, who was white and in her 40s, treated women who were different from her differently and unfairly. Lara noted that no men complained about Maldonado. Thus, she claimed that Maldonado’s actions were a result of race and gender discrimination. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after Lara and the other female screen had complained to human resources, Maldonado must have found out about the complaints, a protected activity, and retaliated against Lara, as Maldonado started a series of events that would eventually lead to Lara’s termination. Counsel noted that Maldonado testified that she was suspicious of Lara and the other female screener, as she noticed that Lara and the other screener would stop talking whenever she walked into a room. Maldonado also claimed that she observed both Lara and the other screener taking notes at work, which plaintiff’s counsel claimed human resources told Lara to do, and that Maldonado testified that she believed Lara and the other female screener had complained about her to human resources. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel contended that on July 17, 2012, the day after the human resources specialist emailed Maldonado’s supervisor a summary of the comments made by both Lara and the other female screener, Maldonado told Lara that her shoes were not in compliance with company regulations even though Lara had been wearing the same company shoes for months before the incident, including at least four or five weeks in front of Maldonado. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that as a result, Maldonado told Lara that she had to clock out, which was one of the initial steps toward discipline in the company, as it counted as an unexcused absence. Counsel contended that when Maldonado would not allow Lara to wait until her mother brought her another pair of shoes, and insisted that Lara clock out, Lara tossed her company duty phone on Maldonado’s desk and walked out. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after Lara complained to human resources again and was told to go back to work, Maldonado, subsequently, complained of Lara’s behavior during the incident, specifically claiming that Lara’s duty phone hit Maldonado, causing the company to initiate an investigation into the incident. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that a video of the events showed that no one was hit by the duty phone and that the human resources’ investigation was one-sided, as the investigators interviewed Lara without her being unaware of Maldonado’s complaints against her. Counsel also asserted that although Lara told the investigators that Maldonado was retaliating against her because of her complaints to human resources, the investigators refused to consider that possibility and provided their results to an executive committee, which later wrongfully terminated Lara for insubordination and for workplace violence. Defense counsel argued that Maldonado was simply a tough boss and that Maldonado was an equal-opportunity enforcer. Counsel contended that what Lara told the human resources specialist was not a protected activity because Lara did not make a claim of harassment or discrimination at that time. Counsel also contended that Maldonado did not know about the complaints to human resources. Maldonado claimed that she did not learn of the complaints to human resources until several days after she disciplined Lara for wearing the allegedly non-compliant shoes and that she only suspected the complaints based on the actions of Lara and the other female screener, who would stop talking whenever she entered the room and would be seen taking notes. Thus, defense counsel argued that Maldonado did not know of the actual complaints to human resources at the time of Lara’s termination. Counsel further argued that, regardless, Lara threw her duty phone at Maldonado, which was still considered a workplace violation, and thus, Lara would still have been terminated for workplace violence., Lara was terminated form her position on July 31, 2012. At that time, she was a single mother raising two young boys. Lara later reconciled with her long-term boyfriend and father of her children. However, she claimed that at the time of the incident, she felt vulnerable, as she lost her position. Lara claimed that as a result, she suffered from anxiety and sleepless nights, causing her to see her father, a homeopathic physician, for homeopathic remedies to calm her down. Lara claimed that she was trying to obtain a position with the U.S. Customs Service and was greatly concerned about the report of workplace violence on her record, which allegedly hampered her ability to obtain any work at all. She alleged that as a result, she started working for a law firm in 2014 and also obtained a side position, working as a translator with a company that does translations for the federal government, which she had to obtain security clearance for. The plaintiff’s economic expert prepared a report on Lara’s earnings. Thus, Lara sought recovery of past wage loss and emotional distress damages.