In September 2014, plaintiff Afrouz Nikmanesh, a pharmacist, concluded her employment at a Walmart retail store’s pharmacy. Nikmanesh had reported that Walmart had been overcharging older and certain disabled customers for their medication. She had also reported that Walmart had not been properly reporting its pharmacies’ dispensing of controlled substances. Nikmanesh claimed that she was fired because of those disclosures. Nikmanesh, acting individually and on behalf of other Walmart pharmacists, sued her employers, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates Inc. The lawsuit alleged that Nikmanesh was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing activity. The lawsuit also alleged that the pharmacists were denied breaks, denied overtime pay and not compensated for time spent studying for necessary pharmacists’ certification. Plaintiffs’ counsel negotiated a pretrial settlement of the compensation and rest-break claims. The matter proceeded to a trial that addressed Nikmanesh’s claims of retaliation and wrongful termination. Nikmanesh claimed that, after she reported Wal-Mart’s actions, she was given a poor performance evaluation, was denied a promotion, and was not given a bonus. She claimed that she resultantly sought other positions and was eventually offered a full-time position with the California State Board of Pharmacy. She claimed that when she told her Wal-Mart supervisor about the job offer, she added that she would only accept the other position if she could remain employed by Wal-Mart on a part-time basis, as a floater, whereby she would move from one store location to another, filling in as needed, because the other position paid less. Nikmanesh claimed that she accepted the other position because her supervisor agreed that she could remain as a part-time floater. She claimed that, shortly after she had accepted the other job offer, she was told by Wal-Mart that she could not remain as a floater and that her employment had been terminated. Nikmanesh claimed that she later learned that there were at least two floater positions available. Defense counsel claimed that Wal-Mart had timely addressed Nikmanesh’s complaints and that Nikmanesh was not fired but had resigned her employment to accept the other full-time position. Defense counsel also claimed that Wal-Mart had no floater positions available to offer Nikmanesh., Nikmanesh claimed that she was terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing activity. She sought recovery of past lost earnings, damages for past and future pain and suffering, and punitive damages.