In October 2007, plaintiff Marie Angel, 37, a Hispanic claims representative for Sutter Health, began to be managed by a new direct supervisor. Soon thereafter, Angel received her first disciplinary performance review from her direct supervisor on Jan. 9, 2008. The second disciplinary performance review by her direct supervisor was given to her six months later, on July 9, 2008. A male coworker then submitted a sexual harassment complaint against Angel on Jan. 7, 2009. However, Angel claimed that the complaint was fabricated and that her negative reviews were pretextual, ultimately leading to her termination on March 9, 2009. Angel sued Sutter Health; employees Doug Gunter, Denise Wagers and Velda Weaver; and nonemployee Gina Gunter. The individual defendants were ultimately dismissed from the case, as were multiple causes of action. Thus, the matter continued against Sutter Health only on the claims of gender, marital status, race and/or national origin discrimination; gender, marital status, race and/or national origin harassment; and failure to prevent harassment and/or discrimination, all in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. She also alleged that Sutter Health wrongfully discharged her in violation of public policy. Angel claimed that she was hired as a technical specialist in November 2001 and then was promoted to a claims representative in January 2006. However, she claimed that after a new direct supervisor was hired in October 2007, she began to be harassed by being burdened with work and by receiving below satisfactory reviews from the new direct supervisor. She also claimed that discriminatory comments were made toward her at the workplace. In addition, Angel claimed that the coworker’s sexual harassment complaint, which alleged that Angel, over a five year period, made inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature, both directed at the coworker and made in the general work environment, was fabricated. Thus, she claimed that the inappropriate negative reviews and fabricated harassment complaint were used as a pretext to wrongfully terminate her. Sutter Health denied all of Angel’s allegations and claimed that Angel was treated equally. It also claimed that the performance deficiencies were legitimate and that the written performance-related disciplines that Angel received were warranted. Sutter Health further claimed that Angel behaved inappropriately in the workplace toward her male coworker, and that she was appropriately terminated based on her prior performance deficiencies and inappropriate conduct in the workplace., Angel, who was 39 at the time of her termination, claimed that as a result of the treatment from her direct supervisor, the sexual harassment complaint made against her, and her termination, she developed severe depression. As a result, she sought counseling through a social services program and has not found other employment. The plaintiff’s neuropsychology expert offered a prognosis and examined the limitations of Angel’s ability to work. The plaintiff’s vocational rehabilitation expert relied on the medical expert’s opinions regarding Angel’s medical limitations and applied them to determine jobs or positions that Angel could perform in the future. The vocational rehabilitation expert also opined that based on Angel’s emotional distress, Angel would not ever be able to hold a similar position. Thus, Angel sought recovery of damages for her past and future economic and non-economic loss. The defense’s vocational rehabilitation expert opined that similar employment was available and that Angel was capable of returning to similar employment but made inadequate efforts to seek such employment. The expert further opined that Angel should have obtained similar employment within six months of her termination.