On Aug. 27, 2007, plaintiff Staci Elizondo, a bookkeeper/medical biller for Charles Tuffli, a Medical Corporation in San Jose, was allegedly confronted by Charles Tuffli, Jr. about her work performance and a work absence. She claimed that during the confrontation, Tuffli forcefully tossed a book of checks at her and threatened to kill her. As a result, in January 2008, Elizondo reported the alleged incident to Staff Resources Inc., the corporation’s professional employer organization that handles human resources and payroll duties. She also claimed that she initially reported the incident to Sarah St. Charles, a Human Resources representative with Staff Resources, but that the claim was denied. Following the January 2008 allegation, Tuffli and Staff Resources sent Elizondo home. She never returned to work with Tuffli. Elizondo sued Charles Tuffli, Jr.; Charles Tuffli, a Medical Corporation; Staff Resources Inc.; and Sarah St. Charles. She alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted retaliation and wrongful termination, in violation of the Ralph Act. Prior to trial, St. Charles was voluntarily dismissed from the case. Elizondo claimed that she called St. Charles on the day of the threat, Aug. 27, 2007, to file a complaint against Tuffli. She also asked for the complaint to be confidential since she was fearful that Tuffli would find out and terminate her. Elizondo claimed that human resources did not investigate her allegation and St. Charles told her to talk to Tuffli to “work it out” with him. She alleged that phone records evidenced a return call from St. Charles’ cell phone to her cell phone on Aug. 27, 2007, in response to her complaint. In addition, Elizondo claimed that after she reported the incident to Staff Resources, she reported it to San Jose Police on Aug. 30, 2007. Elizondo claimed that in January 2008, she again told St. Charles about the August 2007 threat, but that St. Charles told her at a meeting to empty her desk and leave the premises. Thus, she claimed that she was terminated from employment as an act of retaliation for making the complaints. Tuffli and Staff Resources claimed that Elizondo was never terminated from employment and that she was simply placed on paid leave while her allegation was being investigated. However, they claimed that Elizondo simply never returned to work. Tuffli further denied ever making the alleged death threat in August 2007, and that the internal investigation by Staff Resources came to the same conclusion. Staff Resources contended that the phone records that Elizondo referred to proved that the plaintiff never notified St. Charles or anyone else at Human Resources in August 2007 about the alleged threat., Elizondo claimed she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder due to the ordeal and was hospitalized several times for attempting suicide. She alleged that she was ultimately deemed totally disabled by the Social Security Administration. Thus, Elizondo sought over $1 million in total damages, which included economic damages for her lost earnings and non-economic damages for her emotional distress. Defense counsel contended that Elizondo was never terminated from employment and that she was simply put on paid leave. Counsel contended that the defendants even extended Elizondo’s absence when she went on medical leave through Kaiser due her alleged PTSD, but that Elizondo never returned to work. Defense counsel further claimed that the defendants did not cause Elizondo any emotional distress. The defense’s expert psychologist testified that Elizondo had sabotaged the psychological tests that had been administered, such that the only diagnosis she could reach was that Elizondo was malingering and purposely exaggerating her symptoms. The defense’s expert psychiatrist testified that Elizondo’s behavior after the alleged threat did not support a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, but instead reflected long-standing personality disorders.