Beginning in 2014, plaintiffs Foo Soo Li, 69, and Laudenia Pleitez, 59, both porters at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, were allegedly discriminated against and harassed because of their age. They alleged that their supervisors made inappropriate comments about their age and discriminated against them at various times throughout 2014. Li ultimately retired in May 2015, while the case was still pending, while Pleitez is still employed as a porter at the hospital. Li and Pleitez sued the operator of the hospital, the city and county of San Francisco, and their supervisors, Francisco Saenz and Jack Hubbard. Li claimed that Saenz and Hubbard would consistently ask when he was going to retire and were verbally and, at times, physically abusive toward him based on his age. He also claimed that when he suffered a strained shoulder at work, his supervisors refused to accommodate him and made him work through excruciating pain while taunting him. Li alleged that he suffered a disability in his elbow as a result of being forced to work with the prior workplace injury and that he was ultimately forced to retire due to the intolerable conditions and constant verbal abuse and harassment. Pleitez claimed that she was regularly harassed by her supervisors and that she was called an “old lady” and routinely mocked. She also claimed that when she suffered workplace to her knees and back, she was ridiculed and mocked before being removed from her permanent post in the hospital and placed in an entry-level “floater” position, despite her nearly 15 years of service at the hospital. Defense counsel noted that there were no witnesses to the alleged harassment or to any of the abusive actions that the plaintiffs alleged. Thus, defense counsel asserted that no discrimination or retaliation took place against Li or Pleitez. Counsel further asserted that Li’s voluntary retirement and Pleitez’s transfer of duties did not constitute adverse employment actions and that Pleitez was transferred due to complaints by patients and staff, rather than any discriminatory animus., Li claimed that he worked with the city and county of San Francisco since 1999, but that he was ultimately forced to retire in May 2015. He alleged that as a result of his treatment and constructive discharge, he suffers from emotional distress and that as a result, he attends counseling once a month. Thus, Li sought recovery of lost wages as a result of his retirement, and recovery of damages for his past and future emotional distress. Pleitez still works with the city and county of San Francisco, but she also claimed emotional distress as a result of her transfer and demotion. Thus, Pleitez sought recovery of lost wages as a result of her demotion, and recovery of damages for her past and future emotional distress.