In October 2010, plaintiff Cesar Astorga, 49, a supervisor at SnapOn, Inc., a company that manufactures tools, began a leave of absence as a result of a pre-existing medical condition. Astorga had previously suffered work-related , which required multiple surgeries and several leaves of absence. While out on his most recent medical leave, Astorga was demoted to a lead-man, which allegedly had more physically demanding responsibilities. Once he was demoted, the supervisor position was immediately filled with a new hire, Alvaro Moreno, who is much younger and had no physical limitations. Astorga was cleared to return to work, with restrictions, in early January 2011. However, he claimed that SnapOn refused to allow him back to work unless he was 100 percent healed and had no restrictions. As a result, Astorga asked his doctor to remove his restrictions. Astorga ultimately returned to work in March 2011, but informed his supervisor early the next month that he would likely need another surgery. Two weeks later, on April 20, 2011, Astorga was fired for “cause.” He was told he was terminated after he was “found guilty” for allegedly accepting “bribes” or “kick-backs” from outside contractors. Astorga sued his supervisor, Moreno; SnapOn Inc.; and the facility controller, Edmund Barrera. Astorga alleged that the defendants’ actions in regard to his disabilities and need for accommodations constituted a failure to engage in the interactive process, a failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, a failure to prevent discrimination; defamation; and wrongful termination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Astorga claimed that he was demoted while he was out on medical leave and immediately replaced with a younger, healthier new hire (Moreno). He also claimed that while had been working with the same, or similar restrictions, for years, SnapOn refuse to allow him to return to work unless he 100 percent healed and without restrictions. In addition, Astorga claimed that he was unaware that SnapOn had conducted an investigation behind his back and then terminated him without proof of the alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiff’s counsel maintained that there was never any evidence of Astorga accepting money from contractors or that an investigation into the alleged issue was ever conducted. Counsel noted that during discovery, SnapOn “added” to the reason for Astorga’s termination by accusing him of soliciting bribes from a vendor, who denied doing so during his deposition. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel showed the vendor’s deposition at trial. Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the only evidence SnapOn had of Astorga accepting a bribe was the testimony of his new supervisor, Moreno, and the facility controller, Barrera, who claimed the vendor had admitted it to them. However, counsel argued that Moreno and Barrera were untrustworthy because they had given several conflicting versions of how the alleged “bribery” scheme apparently worked and how they learned about it. Defense counsel contended that SnapOn had always accommodated Astorga’s disabilities, that it never discriminated against Astorga, and that it liked Astorga. However, counsel argued that SnapOn had to terminate Astorga when the vendor admitted to giving him kick-backs., Plaintiff’s counsel noted that during trial, it was revealed that Astorga’s medical bills had cost SnapOn, which was self-insured for workers’ compensation, in excess of $270,000. Astorga also testified that his supervisor had told him that Snap-On did not want to pay him a full paycheck when he was only “half a man.” Astorga worked for Snap-On for 15 years. After he was terminated on April 20, 2011, Astorga spent the next 2.5 years trying to find another job. However, he had to list SnapOn as his most recent employer and unaware of the allegedly defamatory information that was spread against him. Astorga eventually found work and is now performing essentially the same duties as he had with SnapOn. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Astorga did not seek counseling for his alleged emotional distress, as Astorga had no insurance, so he just pushed through the emotional distress alone. In addition, while Astorga was testifying about how his emotional distress affected him and his family, he broke down and became very emotional, necessitating a recess. Thus, Astorga sought recovery for his emotional distress, damage to his reputation, and lost earnings. He also sought recovery of punitive damages.