In March 2008, plaintiff Ettie Rosenberg Kaufman was hired as a contract pharmacist by Lancaster State Prison. In June 2008, she was converted to the full-time position of pharmacist-in-charge. Shortly after being hired, Kaufman had a meeting with Tim Belavich, the hiring authority, to discuss matters concerning her religious customs, including not using her pager on the Sabbath and having the high holidays off. Kaufman claimed all of her requests granted. However, in the following months, she went through progressive discipline, which resulted in Rejection on Probation in December 2008, terminating her employment. Kaufman sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Belavich, and the plaintiff’s immediate supervisor, Penny Shank. She alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted discrimination, retaliation and harassment based on her religion, resulting in her wrongful termination. Belavich and Shank were ultimately dismissed from the case via granted motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim was also disposed of by a motion to strike, and a motion for summary adjudication brought on behalf of the Department of Corrections eliminated the causes of action for harassment and retaliation. Thus, Kaufman proceeded to a bifurcated trial on liability with her lone claim for discrimination against the Department of Corrections. Kaufman claimed that when she made her requests to Belavich during the June 2008 meeting, Belavich gave her an icy stare. She also claimed that the progressive discipline that followed was a discriminatory action against her, which ultimately led to her Rejection on Probation. Kaufman further claimed that the disciplinary actions against her started after Belavich discovered she was an Orthodox Jew and continued until her termination in December 2008. In addition, she alleged that one of the write-ups she received was for attending her son’s wedding. The Department of Corrections contended that Kaufman was not discriminated against based on her requests to Belavich and that the plaintiff was an incompetent employee whom was found sleeping at work, failed to follow the chain of command, and failed to supervise her employees. The Department of Corrections further claimed that it had no issue with Kaufman’s requests to Belavich, as they were all granted., The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court. In her mandatory settlement conference brief, Kaufman sought $1.1 million in total damages, which included $559,425 in damages for her past and future loss of earnings and benefits. The Department of Corrections contended that Kaufman was terminated for legitimate business reasons and was owed zero damages.