In 2009, plaintiff Bernadette Gonzalez, a bartender at a TGI Fridays, took a leave absence from her job due to her being pregnant. Gonzalez later took another leave of absence from her job between Dec. 24, 2011, and April 26, 2012. She then extended her leave through May 2012. When Gonzalez did not return to work, she was terminated on June 8, 2012. Gonzalez sued the operator of TGI Fridays, Briad Restaurant Group, LLC, and the restaurant’s general manager, Jesus De La Torre. Gonzalez alleged that Torre made defamatory comments about her pregnancy in 2009 (as well as about a prior pregnancy in 2005). She also alleged that Briad Restaurant wrongfully terminated her in retaliation for taking medical leave. Thus, Gonzalez alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate a disability/engage in the interactive process, a violation of the California Family Rights Act, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination. De La Torre and Briad Restaurant flatly deny there were any defamatory comments made about Gonzalez’s pregnancies, and no witnesses were presented to support those claims. Thus, De La Torre was dismissed from the case prior to trial. Gonzalez claimed that when she returned to work following her 2009 maternity leave, she found that her hours were cut and she was not accommodated for lifting. She also claimed that before she went out on leave again in December 2011, her hours were cut again. Gonzalez contended that near the end of her 2011/2012 medical leave, she extended it through May 2012 and that on June 8, 2012 she faxed Briad Restaurant a doctor’s note that should have extended her leave further. She also contended that even though she stayed in contact with the restaurant, her employment was terminated in retaliation for her taking medical leave. Briad Restaurant claimed that Gonzalez was accommodated and that there were procedures in place to prevent discrimination. Counsel for Briad Restaurant argued that, after going over Gonzalez’s work hours while Gonzalez was on the witness stand, Gonzalez failed to prove her hours were cut. As to the accommodation claim, Briad Restaurant claimed that Gonzalez was told not to fill the dish bins to a point where it was more than she could carry, was told she could take dishes into the kitchen one at a time, and was told that she did not have to take out the trash. It also claimed that Gonzalez did not have to lift kegs (even when she was not pregnant). Defense counsel argued that regardless of these accommodations, Gonzalez did not provide a doctor’s note stating what type of lifting accommodation she needed nor stating the reasons why the accommodations provided were not reasonable. In fact, counsel contended that Gonzalez testified that she did not even discuss a lifting accommodation with her doctor. Briad Restaurant claimed that it appropriately approved Gonzalez’s leave of absence on Dec. 24, 2011, and approved the leave extension through May 30, 2012. However, it claimed it never received the alleged faxed doctor’s note on June 9, 2012, which was already after her leave had expired and after it had made the decision to terminate her. Briad Restaurant alleged that after Gonzalez’s leave had been extended and she used up all her leave time under the Family Medical Leave Act, Pregnancy Disability Leave, and California Family Rights Act, it did not hear back from Gonzalez. It claimed that when Gonzalez did not report in after May 30, 2012, De La Torre tried to call her three times to find out what was going on, but could not reach her. Briad Restaurant claimed that since Gonzalez did not return to work or communicate further after her leave expired at the end of May 2012, it had no choice but to terminate her. The claim regarding a violation of the California Family Rights Act was decided in favor of Briad Restaurant on summary adjudication., Gonzalez sought recovery of damages in relation to her claims of discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate a disability/engage in the interactive process, a violation of the California Family Rights Act, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination. She also sought a declaratory judgment. Defense counsel argued that Gonzalez suffered no damages.