In March 2012, plaintiff Patricia Metzner, a director of the Oakland Perioperative Medicine Clinic in her 50s, was placed on a performance improvement plan. Metzner began working for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in 1992. She worked as a director of cardiovascular services from 2000 to 2010, but when the cardiovascular unit was closing in early 2010, she was designated as a director of the Broadway medical office’s Special Procedures Suite — Eye Surgery Center. Later that same year, Metzner became a director of the Oakland Perioperative Medicine Clinic. In May or June of 2011, Metzner told her supervisor that she was considering undergoing back surgery. As a result, Metzner was out on medical leave, under the Family Medical Leave Act, from September 2011 until January 2012. In March 2012, approximately two months after she returned to work, Metzner was placed on a performance improvement plan. However, in October 2012, she was told that she did not pass her performance improvement plan. As a result, Metzner was terminated from her position in January 2013. Metzner sued the Permanente Medical Group. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Metzner had good reviews, and even received an “excellent” in each category of her performance review in March 2011, but that shortly after Metzner told her supervisor that she was considering undergoing back surgery, the same supervisor suggested to her supervisor that Metzner should be placed on a performance improvement plan. Thus, counsel argued that the performance improvement plan and subsequent termination was in retaliation for Metzner taking medical leave. Defense counsel contended that Metzner’s performance was bad since she started the new position in 2010. However, Metzner claimed that she was only told about her alleged poor performance after she disclosed that she might need to undergo back surgery., Metzner remained unemployed for three years after her termination. She claimed that although she had applied for new jobs, she was unsuccessful, as her previous position was at a high level and in a specialized field. Thus, Metzner sought recovery of past and future economic damages for her lost wages. She also sought recovery of past and future noneconomic damages due to her emotional distress. The defense’s expert in human resources and mitigation of damages opined that Metzner should have been able to find similar work earlier than she alleged.