On June 16, 2016, plaintiff Dianna Mann, 61, an administrative analyst, was terminated from her position in the University of California, Irvine’s Lean Six Sigma Department. She was told she was laid off as part of a departmental reorganization, but she claimed that she was the only one terminated in the reorganization. Mann further claimed that she was discriminated against and fired in retaliation for making prior complaints. Mann sued her employers, The Regents of the University of California and the University of California, Irvine Medical Center. Mann alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted age, gender and disability discrimination; retaliation; and failure to prevent discrimination. Mann claimed that her boss acted inappropriately in one-on-one settings, micro-managed her work, isolated her from her co-workers and interfered with her efforts to succeed at the university. She alleged that she made complaints to the university’s human resources department, but that the department made various policy violations in the handling her complaints prior to her termination. She claimed that her termination was in retaliation for her human resources complaints. Mann also noted that she was the only female in the department and the only employee in the department who took extended disability leaves of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act, as she had a serious health condition. She claimed that as a result, her termination was a form of discrimination, as she was the only person terminated during the reorganization of that department. Defense counsel contended that Mann was laid off as part of a departmental reorganization to increase the presence of “black belt” Lean Six Sigma practitioners and that Mann was the only a “green belt” within the department. Counsel also contended that the reorganization was part of a University Medical Center cost-saving effort, which was launched as a result of an outside consultant’s report. Counsel further contended that Mann’s co-workers and superiors supported the claim that Mann was a poor performer. In addition, defense counsel argued that Mann’s direct boss, who was unavailable at the time of trial, was the primary target of Mann’s allegations, but that the Regents challenged the credibility of Mann’s claim of workplace misconduct by her boss, citing conflicting circumstantial evidence and the absence of any corroboration., Mann claimed that she suffered a loss of earnings as a result of her termination, which caused her to become homeless. She also claimed that she developed ongoing major depressive disorder with anxiety as a result of her termination and subsequent homelessness. Mann sought recovery of $17 million in total damages. Defense counsel challenged the credibility of Mann’s claim of becoming homeless, citing conflicting circumstantial evidence and the absence of any corroboration.