On Oct. 31, 2013, plaintiff Kimberly Perry, a human resources manager for eGumball Inc., was terminated from her position upon her return from maternity leave. Perry previously delivered a stillborn child while on maternity leave. As a result, on Oct. 4, 2013, she informed her employer that she would require two accommodations for her alleged disability upon her return to work by the end of the month. She requested a private office and for eGumball’s Chief Executive Officer, John Bauer, to inform her colleagues about her loss via email. However, Bauer did not send an email, but, instead, held a meeting with the entire staff to inform them that Perry had a stillborn child. When Perry attempted to return from maternity leave on Oct. 31, 2013, she was terminated from her position. eGumball then presented Perry with a severance agreement stating that in exchange for $5,000, she would waive any and all claims against the company. Perry declined. She claimed that Bauer was determined to terminate her after the loss of her child because he believed that she was depressed and emotionally compromised. Perry sued eGumball Inc. and Bauer. Perry alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted gender discrimination, disability discrimination, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. She also alleged that the defendants failed to reasonably accommodate her disability and failed to engage in the interactive process. She further alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a violation of California’s pregnancy disability leave laws. Bauer, as an individual, was granted summary judgment. As a result, he only appeared at trial as the CEO and company representative, but not as a defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that since Perry had no documented write-ups or reprimands during the three years she worked as a human resources manager for eGumball, the executive management team began a systematic and calculated process to find and document reasons to justify their decision to terminate her. Counsel contended that soon after Perry informed eGumball that she would be returning to work, the executive management team hired a human resources auditing firm to conduct an audit on the Human Resources Department at eGumball. The audit was to be completed before Perry returned in order to assess the status of the Human Resources Department. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that during the audit, the Human Resources Coordinator and the assistant to the CEO answered all of the questions posed by the auditor, but the CEO, Brauer, acknowledged that Perry would have been the most knowledgeable person regarding the Human Resources Department at the time the audit occurred. Perry claimed that when she attempted to return to work on the morning of Oct. 31, 2013, she was a list of reasons for her termination was read to her by an employee she had never met and that when she asked for a copy of the list, the new employee told her Brauer had instructed him not to give her a copy. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after the Employment Development Department notified eGumball that Perry had filed for unemployment benefits, Brauer instructed the Human Resources Coordinator to consult with legal counsel on how to respond. Counsel contended that after doing so, the Human Resources Coordinator notified the Employment Development Department that Perry was fired as a result of the findings from the human resource’s audit. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that evidence showed that the audit was not completed until after Perry’s termination. Defense counsel contended that, per company policy, eGumball required that Perry submit a doctor’s note before returning to work and that Perry’s doctor’s note released her to return to work without restrictions. Thus, counsel argued that the doctor’s note proved that Perry was not disabled. Defense counsel also contended that when Perry requested her personnel file after her termination, Brauer instructed the company’s employment lawyers to send her the personnel file, but that items were missing from Perry’s file. Thus, counsel argued that Perry kept inadequate documentation of herself by not writing herself up in her personnel file. In addition, Brauer admitted that he considered moving Perry into a private office, per her request, but that this became unnecessary once it was decided to terminate her employment. Defense counsel argued that eGumball relied on the audit findings to prove that Perry had performance issues, which justified her termination. Brauer testified that although the audit was not completed until after Perry’s termination, he made the ultimate decision to terminate her after receiving the audit’s preliminary results. Defense counsel also argued that Perry was terminated due to her interpersonal skills, and called multiple witnesses throughout trial who claimed that they had issues with Perry. In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that all of the witnesses who allegedly had problems with Perry were troublesome employees whom Perry often reprimanded for tardiness and inappropriate behavior at work. Counsel contended that Perry confronted difficult situations in the workplace, such as employees doing drugs on eGumball’s premises, employees passing around pornographic images, and employees consuming alcohol in the workplace. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that evidence at trial showed that Brauer gave conflicting directives to Perry regarding how to handle those situations., Perry testified to the heartbreak and humiliation she felt when she was terminated. Perry’s lead counsel stated in closing argument that eGumball had taken “an unlawful termination, and…staple-gunned it to [Perry’s] stillborn child.” Thus, Perry sought recovery of emotional-distress damages. Following the liability phase, plaintiff’s counsel presented evidence of eGumball’s ability to pay punitive damages. Brauer was questioned, as CEO, about the company’s ability to pay using its unaudited financials, and Brauer claimed that eGumball did not have audited financials. In opposition to any award of punitive damages, Brauer stated that he made “a bad business decision,” and that he “should have been more compassionate.” However, he refused to acknowledge that his actions were illegal. According to plaintiff’s counsel, Brauer testified that he wanted to go to trial to be vindicated and that when he won, he would “optimize [the verdict] on the internet for everybody to search.” In closing argument for punitive damages, plaintiff’s counsel argued that eGumball’s conduct was reprehensible and that the jury should decide just how reprehensible its actions were. Thus, counsel suggested using a Constitutional single digit multiplier of the underlying verdict. Defense counsel argued that eGumball had already been punished enough with the underlying verdict and no further punitive damages were required.