In April 2008, plaintiff Roger Lianoz, a registered nurse for Hospice of Humboldt, was allegedly asked to work with a female aide, rather than a male aide. Lianoz claimed that he questioned an indirect supervisor’s decision and was told that the indirect supervisor didn’t like the idea of two men working together. Lianoz claimed he was subjected to gender discrimination and retaliation after questioning the indirect supervisor, and was ultimately termination in October 2008. Lianoz sued his employer, Hospice of Humboldt. He alleged that the defendant’s actions constituted gender discrimination and retaliation. The gender discrimination claim was dismissed during trial, and only the retaliation claim was decided by the jury. Lianoz claimed that in April 2008, Hospice of Humboldt attempted to have him change aide assignments, but that the indirect supervisor told him that she didn’t like the idea of two men working together. He alleged that as a result, he was asked to work with a female aide, but he questioned the indirect supervisor’s decision. Lianoz claimed that soon thereafter, he was assigned to a full-time day position with a specified patient caseload. He also claimed that the indirect supervisor became his immediate supervisor in mid-July 2008, when she was promoted to an interim supervisor position. Lianoz alleged that for approximately six months after he took on his new position, he received various work performance write-ups in retaliation for questioning the request to not work with a male aide. Lianoz was then terminated following the series of various poor work performance issues identified in the write-ups. Defense counsel disputed the claim that the indirect supervisor made a comment about not wanting two men to work together and argued that if any such comment was made, it was for legitimate reasons, as some patients preferred to have female or male aides perform their personal care. Counsel also argued that Lianoz was terminated for poor work performance and denied that the work performance write-ups were prepared in retaliation for Lianoz objecting to work with a female aide. Defense counsel contended that the work performance issues identified in Lianoz’s write-ups included being tardy for work, mishandling hospice patient pain control, harassing a coworker who had complained about his behavior, misreporting mileage reimbursement claims, and directing a home health aide to remove a patient’s catheter, which is a task outside Lianoz’s scomploype of ement. Counsel also contended that before the decision to terminate was made, perLianoz was placed on two work performance plans, but that when work performance did not improve, Lianoz was terminated because of the culmination of his ongoing work formance issues., Lianoz claimed that he was employed by Hospice of Humboldt from July 2007 until his termination in October 2008. He initially claimed that he suffered emotional distress as a result of his wrongful termination. However, the emotional-distress claim was dismissed shortly before jury instructions. Lianoz also claimed that did not work for approximately two years following his termination and that once he did find employment, his earnings were less than what he had made with Hospice of Humboldt. Thus, Lianoz sought recovery of $782,902 for his past and future wage losses.