In August 2010, Plaintiff Valerie Genco, a sales representative, was fired from her position at DIRTT Environmental Solutions, a Calgary-based company that designs workplace interiors. Immediately following her termination, DIRTT replaced Genco with a male employee. Genco claimed she was fired in retaliation for making ongoing workplace complaints and for opposing Founder and Chief Executive Officer Mogens Smed’s alleged gender and sexual-orientation-based employment preferences. Genco sued DIRTT Environmental Solutions and Smed for harassment, and gender and sexual orientation discrimination. The matter proceeded to mediation. Genco was hired by the company in July 2008, and she was employed as a salesperson in Northern California, with a primary focus on Bay Area sales. Thus, she claimed that she is a sales industry veteran and had a good work record. However, she claimed that Smed consistently insulted and harassed her. Genco also alleged that Smed referred to her as a “bitch” and allowed others to refer to her as a member of a “battered wives club.” As DIRTT did not have any written employment policies, Genco claimed that she had no recourse but to pursue her harassment and discrimination complaints. Smed, who was Genco’s supervisor, the company’s primary managing agent and the highest-ranking corporate officer, allegedly made public statements regarding not believing in human resources, attorneys or MBAs. In his deposition, Smed actually testified that he “hate[d] human resources,” and he admitted that he did not “want rules issued by a human resources division” restricting his company’s business practices. In his deposition, Smed admitted that he “may have” “used the word ‘bitch’ in the workplace to discuss characteristics of [his] female employees.” He also testified that he actually considered it to be a “compliment” to refer to a saleswoman as a “real bitch” because saleswomen “need[ed] to be tough.” Smed further admitted that, leading up to Genco’s termination, he sent one of Genco’s coworkers an e-mail stating that he was “adamant” the company needed to hire “a gay guy in SF” because the company did not “need another woman working for DIRTT in that region.” Genco also alleged that these same comments were repeated to her at a business meeting when Smed fired her and unfairly criticized her work, despite her positive job performance. Smed further admitted in his deposition that he told Genco that he “thought that the gay market in San Francisco would respond better to a gay man.” According to Smed, DIRTT “needed somebody that could relate to the gay community . . . in San Francisco,” and that it, “never works well with having . . . good-looking women, like [Genco], that are selling to the gay community.” During his deposition, Smed further admitted that when he terminated Genco, he said, ‘You girls are not out there selling to these architects; they can’t relate to you, so I’m getting a gay man.” DIRTT and Smed denied, and continue to deny, Genco’s allegations that she was fired for not being a “gay guy.” Defense counsel asserted that Smed’s e-mail to a friend, in which he expressed the desire to hire a “gay guy,” had nothing to do with Genco or her employment at DIRTT, and, instead, reflected Smed’s desire to further integrate diversity into DIRTT’s sales force. DIRTT maintained it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Genco, unrelated to gender or sexual orientation. According to DIRTT, the company terminated Genco for failing to sell and perform as a sales representative and for lack of understanding of DIRTT’s sales protocols and philosophy. It further alleged that sales increased substantially in the Northern California territory since Genco’s departure from DIRTT. To counter Genco’s claims, DIRTT claimed it was illogical Smed would hire Genco and increase her salary within the first three months of hire, only to fire her two years later because she was a heterosexual woman. Despite not having any written employment policies, DIRTT maintained that it does not tolerate discrimination or harassment., Genco sought recovery of damages related to the alleged harassment and discrimination that she was subjected to.