In November 2007, plaintiff Eric Nimmo, 38, a painter for a resort in Laguna Beach owned Montage Hotels & Resorts, LLC, returned from a medical leave of absence, due to knee and foot surgery. However, shortly after his return, he asked for accommodations from his employer, claiming he developed leukocytoclastic vasculitis, an auto-immune disease. On Feb. 8, 2008, Montage noted that Nimmo had no more leave time left and terminated his employment. Nimmo sued Montage Hotels & Resorts, LLC. He alleged that the company’s actions constituted disability discrimination, failure to prevent disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and failure to engage in the interactive process. Nimmo alleged Montage refused his request to be put on a part-time schedule and terminated his employment, claiming he was not disabled and had no more leave time left. He claimed that Montage demanded he provide doctor’s notes, which he complied with by providing three notes between Jan. 24, 2008, and Feb. 5, 2008. He alleged that the last doctor’s note requested that he be put on a part-time schedule, but that the request was refused. Thus, Nimmo claimed that Montage failed to acknowledge his leukocytoclastic vasculitis as a disability and failed to explore reasonable accommodations, such as part-time employment (three days a week). Nimmo further claimed that although he had exhausted his 12 weeks of leave for a serious health condition, the time he requested for disability leave was separate from the one related to his knee and foot surgery, and should have been granted. Montage claimed that it did not believe Nimmo had a disability that required special accommodations. It alleged that leukocytoclastic vasculitis was not a disability since Nimmo’s medical condition, itself, did not limit his ability to perform any job function; he only needed time off to see his doctors. Thus, Montage claimed that, having exhausted all his statutorily permitted leave, Nimmo was not entitled to additional leave time or an accommodated work schedule. In addition, Montage acknowledged that Nimmo was separated from employment with the company, but claimed that the plaintiff was eligible for rehire once he could return to full-time work., Nimmo claimed he suffered from a major depressive disorder for a year following his termination, which was confirmed by his expert forensic psychiatrist. He also claimed that he was unable to obtain work for 3.5 years after his termination, but that he has since found new employment. Thus, Nimmo sought recovery of $170,345 in damages for his past lost earnings over 3.5 years and an unspecified amount for his noneconomic damages for his emotional distress. He also sought recovery of punitive damages. Defense counsel argued that Nimmo did not do enough to mitigate his damages and seek employment after being terminated, including his refusal to accept an unconditional offer of re-employment with the company, which was offered approximately one year after he was separated from Montage. Counsel further argued that Nimmo did not sustain emotional distress.