On Nov. 1, 2018, claimant Marisol Carrillo, a Hispanic woman, was terminated from her position as vice president of operations for K. Bell Socks, a company that manufactures socks in Inglewood. Prior to her termination, Carrillo attempted to resolve a complaint filed by a temporary employee, who was transgender. Carrillo claimed the human resources manager was biased against her because of her race and/or national origin, and bore a grudge against her for attempting to resolve the complaint without involving the human resources department. She claimed that the human resources manager retaliated against her by terminating her position. Carrillo also noted that the subsequent person who was chosen to fill her position was white. Carrillo sued the operator of K. Bell Socks, Renfro Corp. Carrillo alleged that Renfro’s actions constituted whistleblower retaliation and national origin discrimination. The matter was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, but Carrillo had signed an arbitration agreement with K. Bell Socks prior to it being purchased by Renfro. The court ruled that the arbitration agreement counted, so the matter proceeded to a binding arbitration. Carrillo claimed that she was treated differently than other workers, as human resources monitored her attendance and micromanaged her, while other workers, especially those in supervisory roles like her, were not. She also claimed that when she learned that a temporary employee filed a complaint about derogatory comments being made about the employee, who is transgender, she attempted to resolve the issue without elevating the complaint to human resources. Carrillo claimed that the human resources manager started an investigation against her after he forwarded a complaint to human resources about the transgender employee’s attendance and performance, and recommended that the temporary transgender employee be terminated. Carrillo claimed that she only learned eight months after she was fired that her termination was due to the investigation that was authorized by the human resources manager. Carrillo claimed the human resources manager was biased against her due to her race and/or national origin, and bore a grudge against her because of the way she handled the transgender employee’s complaint. Claimant’s counsel contended that Carrillo did nothing wrong. Counsel contended that the human resources department worked part-time and that other co-workers agreed that the company policy was that if any derogatory comments were made, they had to be reported to human resources, but that if human resources was not there, then the comments would have to be reported to a supervisor, such as Carrillo. Accordingly, claimant’s counsel asserted that Carrillo was wrongfully terminated because of the human resources manager’s bias against Carrillo’s race and/or place of origin, and bore ill will against Carrillo after she recommended termination for the temporary employee. The respondent’s counsel acknowledged that Carrillo was terminated from her position based on the investigation report and recommendation of the human resources manager. However, counsel asserted that Carrillo violated the company’s policies as the vice president of operations by allowing a toxic environment to persist, which resulted in the complaint from the temporary employee. Counsel also asserted that Carrillo retaliated against the transgender employee by recommending that employee’s termination., Carrillo worked for the company for 17 years. She was earning $175,000 at her position at the time of her termination. She claimed that she was out of work for eight months until she found another job earning $60,000. Carrillo claimed she suffers from emotional distress as a result of the incidents. She claimed that as a result, she treats with her designated psychology expert. Carrillo’s treating psychologist opined that Carrillo will need another year or two of counseling. Carrillo sought recovery of $18,500 in past medical costs for her counseling and an unspecified amount in future medical costs for additional treatment.  She also sought recovery of past and future loss of wages, and damages for her past and future emotional pain and suffering.