On Nov. 12, 2010, plaintiff Troy Williams, a black 43 year old, who worked as a receiver at the same Ralphs grocery store, in Torrance, since he was 15, was purchasing lemonade for his son’s football team. Williams conceded that he partially covered the cart with flattened cardboard, but contended that he told the female cashier that he had two cases of Simply Lemonade, or a total of 12 bottles. However, the cashier only rung him up for six bottles. On Nov. 23, 2010, Williams was called into management office and informed that he was being suspended because he had only paid for six bottles of lemonade, but left the store with 12 bottle. Following an in-person meeting with his union representative and Ralphs’ management, Williams was ultimately terminated from his position on Dec. 16, 2010. Williams sued Ralphs Grocery Co.; his supervisor, Cynthia Wong Watanabe; and his co-workers who gave written statements to Ralphs’ loss prevention investigators about the incident, Laurie Brown and Tiffany Conner. Williams alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted discrimination based on actual or perceived disability, discrimination based on age, discrimination based on race, harassment, failure to prevent harassment, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, wrongful discharge, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defense counsel was granted summary judgment on all claims, except for harassment, failure to prevent harassment, and defamation. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the transaction was a simple purchase of two cases of lemonade, which were in clear view of the cashier, but that the cashier simply failed to ring up the order properly. Counsel noted that as shown by four views of Ralphs’ security cameras, the transaction was, in fact, witnessed by several members of management and other employees, none of whom found the transaction unusual. Regardless, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Brown, who was the subject of a prior complaint by Williams, used the opportunity to retaliate against Williams and allegedly reported the transaction as a theft. Counsel contended that Ralphs waited 10 days to investigate the report and that the cashier, who was on a “last and final” warning, refused to acknowledge that she had rung up the transaction wrong. Plaintiff’s counsel added that both the investigator and the individual making the decision to fire Williams were white. Williams also claimed that for about 18 months before his firing, one of his former supervisors, Cynthia Wong Watanabe, who is Asian, made racially charged statements, including statements about his clothing and the music he favored. Other witnesses testified that Watanabe used the term “negro” and the “n word.” Thus, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Ralphs pre-judged Williams and conducted a cursory, one-sided investigation, ignoring glaring exculpatory evidence showing that no theft had occurred. Counsel further argued that after being fired, Ralph’s management and personnel made defamatory statements that Williams stole, was a thief, and was dishonest. Williams claimed that the defamatory statements subsequently had wide-ranging financial and emotional effects on his life. Defense counsel contended that when asked what he told the cashier, Williams allegedly stated that he could not remember and that when the cashier was interviewed, she stated that Williams allegedly told her, “Charge me for six.” Thus, counsel argued that Williams was fired for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, that the statement that Williams was fired for stealing was true, and that Ralphs’ investigation demonstrated reasonable care in determining the truth of whether or not Williams stole. Among many factors, defense counsel contended that the lemonade was concealed with flattened cardboard laid across the top of the basket, that Williams was unable to state what he had told the cashier, and that the cashier’s statement was consistent with the security video. Counsel noted that, as most of the claims were dismissed on summary judgment, the jury did not hear that the employment decision to terminate Williams had already been adjudicated as lawful. In addition, defense counsel contended that Williams was barred from seeking a defamation claim, as the witness statements were made two years before the lawsuit and, in California, there is a one-year statute of limitations on defamation. Thus, counsel contended that Williams was one year over the statute of limitations. Before closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel dismissed all of the individual defendants, and the failure to prevent harassment claim. Thus, the case went to jury on the harassment and defamation claims only., Williams claimed he suffered emotional distress as a result of the ordeal, but he did not seek counseling. He also did not seek recovery for any future emotional distress. Williams claimed that he had worked as a receiving clerk for 27 years, starting first at an Alpha Beta supermarket in Long Beach, and that his seniority carried over to Ralphs, when the food store chains merged in the 1990s. He also claimed that he held a second job with the Los Angeles Unified School District while working at Ralphs and that he continues to work there. However, Williams claimed that he suffered a loss of income as a result of his termination from Ralphs. As a result of the accusations about stealing and his termination, Williams claimed damage to his reputation. He alleged that since he has to make honest statements in his applications about being fired from Ralphs upon being accused of stealing, he has failed to find new employment to replace the income lost while he was at Ralphs. As a result, Williams eventually obtained a contractor’s license and formed a company with a partner to paint residential and commercial buildings, but he alleged that this income still did not make up for the lost pay from Ralphs. Williams claimed that Ralphs eventually offered him his job back at the same position, with the same pay, but that he turned it down because he did not want to return to a location with a “label on [his] head” of being a thief. The plaintiff’s economics expert opined that Williams would lose $1.2 million in pay. The defense’s forensic psychiatry expert opined that Williams was not suffering from any emotional distress, including depression or anxiety, as Williams claimed. Defense counsel argued that all economic losses alleged by Williams were for lost earnings, but that those claims were time barred, as they were tied to Williams’ defamation claims. In addition, defense counsel argued that Williams’ company was highly profitable and that Williams was making as much as $150,000 per year, which was more than he ever made as a receiver.