In 2008, plaintiff Lauren Pinter-Brown, M.D., 50s, a hematologic oncologist, began to have disagreements with Dr. Sven de Vos, her colleague in the lymphoma program at UCLA Medical Center, about how clinical trials should be conducted. Pinter-Brown began working as the director of the UCLA lymphoma program in 2005, but she claimed that in 2008, she started experiencing differential treatment from de Vos, who was initially a subordinate physician. She claimed that she was subjected to harsher comments and unequal treatment, as compared to her male colleagues, and that she was retaliated against when she complained. Pinter-Brown claimed that as a result, she attempted to avoid additional confrontations before ultimately being forced to resign in December 2015. Pinter-Brown sued the University of California at Los Angeles, the Regents of the University of California, and Dr. Sven De Vos. Pinter-Brown alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted gender discrimination, gender retaliation, age discrimination, and age harassment, resulting in her constructive discharge. De Vos was ultimately dismissed from the case, and that matter only continued against the Regents, which was stipulated to be the same as the University of California at Los Angeles. Pinter-Brown alleged that throughout her entire tenure at UCLA Medical Center, she consistently received exemplary peer reviews, awards, and accolades. She also alleged that, until 2013, she was one of only two senior female faculty members in the program. Pinter-Brown claimed that in 2008, she began experiencing differential treatment from de Vos, who repeatedly berated for her clinical trial work. She also claimed that during program meetings, de Vos would ignore her, look at his phone, and turn his chair to face away from her. Pinter-Brown further claimed that in March 2011, she had an encounter with de Vos that caused her to feel physically threatened, but that when she complained about the incident, the faculty member assigned to assist her told her that she was known to be “a diva” and an “angry woman.” She contended that as a result of her complaints, the male-dominated administration retaliated against her by having a committee review her clinical trials and ultimately decide to suspend her research privileges for one year. She also contended that she was further retaliated against when her administrative title as director was removed shortly thereafter. Pinter-Brown claimed that as a result, her reputation was permanently harmed, but that the Regents made no significant efforts to remedy the situation. In addition, she claimed that she was forced to “play dead” at work to avoid additional confrontation before ultimately resigning her employment in December 2015. Defense counsel denied Pinter-Brown’s allegations, pointing to the timing of Pinter-Brown’s complaints, which came after the committee started auditing her trials, and counsel took the position that Pinter-Brown’s issues were work and professional related. Defense counsel asserted that much of the conflict between Pinter-Brown and de Vos was rooted in their different ideas about how clinical trials should be conducted. Counsel contended that when medical committee members became concerned about how Pinter-Brown’s trials were proceeding, they suspended her research privileges in June 2012. However, defense counsel argued that Pinter-Brown had always been treated fairly, asserting that the faculty worked with Pinter-Brown to resolve her concerns, including arranging a meeting with Pinter-Brown and two high-ranking female faculty members with whom she allegedly confirmed that she did not have gender-related complaints. Counsel also asserted that the same division chief who removed Pinter-Brown’s director title was the same person who initially brought Pinter-Brown in to the program and appointed her the director and that that when Pinter-Brown lost her director title, there was no impact to Pinter-Brown’s compensation, benefits or other terms of employment. In fact, counsel noted that Pinter-Brown continued to make significantly more than her male colleagues. In addition, defense counsel focused on the timing of Pinter-Brown’s complaints and her suspension, all of which occurred by August 2012, and asserted that by the time Pinter-Brown resigned in December 2015, her research privileges had been fully reinstated for over a year and her compensation was significantly higher than it had ever been., Pinter-Brown claimed that she suffered from emotional distress, which included suicidal thoughts, as a result of her treatment at UCLA Medical Center. She alleged that as a result, she was compelled to see a psychiatrist for the first time eight months after she had already left UCLA Medical Center and again two months after she had commenced her lawsuit. Pinter-Brown continues to treat with a psychiatrist, who testified that Pinter-Brown had post-traumatic stress disorder as well as major depressive disorder related to her treatment at UCLA Medical Center and her being forced to leave. He also opined that Pinter-Brown might require another 1.5 years of twice monthly talk therapy to address any ongoing emotional issues. Pinter-Brown sought recovery of lost wages and damages for her past and future emotional distress. Defense counsel disputed Pinter-Brown’s lost wages claim, asserting that although she lost her director title, there was no impact to Pinter-Brown’s compensation, benefits or other terms of employment and that Pinter-Brown continued to make significantly more than her male colleagues. Defense counsel also asserted that when Pinter-Brown left UCLA Medical Center on Dec. 31, 2015, her compensation was significantly higher than it had ever been, and that Pinter-Brown joined UC Irvine Health on Jan. 1, 2016, the day after she resigned from UCLA Medical Center.