On Dec. 25, 2016, plaintiff Elizabeth Miranda, a housekeeper in her 30s, was working alone at a Howard Johnson hotel, in Pasadena, when she allegedly suffered a sciatic attack. She returned to work, but was eventually sent home due to the physical nature of the work. Miranda was given time off from work, and she was told she could come back to work if she had a medical note. As a result, Miranda went to a physician. Her husband then presented to the hotel a few days in December 2016 and January 2017 with two or three notes from Huntington Memorial Hospital, in Pasadena, that stated that Miranda would be able to come back to work, but she did not. Approximately three months later, Miranda presented a note from a medical clinic that stated she could return to work, but that she had to be careful with her back. Miranda and her husband then had a meeting with the hotel in March 2017, during which Miranda was told she could not return to work at that time. As a result, Miranda believed she was fired from her position. Miranda sued the operator of the hotel, Wishible Professional Inc., alleging that the hotel’s actions constituted a failure to accommodate, a failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination. Miranda’s counsel contended that Miranda presented medical notes to the hotel, as requested, but that the hotel still refused to allow her to return to work. Counsel also contended that Miranda could have been accommodated, but that the hotel did not consider her accommodations. Defense counsel contended that when Miranda originally left work in pain, she was given time off, told to get better and told to come back to work with a medical note stating that she was able to work. Counsel also contended that on a few days in December 2016 and January 2017, Miranda sent her husband with two or three notes from Huntington Memorial Hospital stating that she could come back to work, but Miranda did not. Counsel further contended that Miranda eventually presented another note approximately three months later, this time from a medical clinic, but the note had the wrong name on it and it was unclear whether Miranda would be returning to work or not. As a result, defense counsel maintained that Wishible Professional told Miranda to get a new note with the correct name on it and to have the note define whether she would be returning to work or not. A few days later, Miranda presented a new note, which had her name correctly listed on it and which stated that she could return to work, but that she had to be careful with her back. Defense counsel asserted that in March 2017, Miranda and her husband had a meeting with the hotel, during which she was told that if she presented a doctor’s note that specified her limitations, she could return, but, otherwise, she could not. However, counsel noted that six weeks after the meeting, Miranda saw another doctor who wrote a series of notes stating that Miranda was incapable of doing her job. Defense counsel argued that the inconsistencies with Miranda’s testimony during her workers’ compensation case and the subject case in regard to whether or not she could have continued working was why Miranda did not return to work. Counsel also argued that Miranda did not bring up any suggestions for accommodations at the March 2017 meeting or at any other time. Defense counsel further argued that Miranda was not terminated and that Miranda was told that she had a job as long as she returned with a doctor’s note stating she was allowed to return, but that Miranda never contacted Wishible Professional again., Miranda claimed that she suffered a loss of earnings as a result of not being allowed to return to work. She also claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the incidents. Miranda sought recovery of $50,000 in damages for her lost wages and emotional pain and suffering.