On or around Jan. 5, 2015, plaintiff Della Hill, 56, a counselor for Asian American Drug Abuse Program Inc., a Los Angeles agency that helps recovering drug addicts, notified her supervisor that she fell and broke her arm while she was off of work between Dec. 31, 2014 and Jan. 4, 2015. As a result, Hill claimed she needed to take a medical leave. Hill submitted a doctor’s note, taking her off of work, and the leave was extended on several occasions. Several weeks after the fall, Hill was diagnosed with major depression. Throughout her leave, Hill submitted medical absence notes from her doctor to the program, and Hill’s doctor extended her leave until April 11, 2015. However, on March 31, 2015, while Hill was still on her medical leave, she was terminated her from her position for allegedly failing to return from her medical leave. Hill sued Asian American Drug Abuse Program Inc., alleging that the program’s actions constituted disability discrimination, a failure to accommodate, a failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination. She also alleged that the program’s actions constituted a violation of the California Family Rights Act. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the chief executive officer of the Asian American Drug Abuse Program could not give a single example of any effort the agency made to accommodate Hill or offer comparable employment after she returned from leave. Defense counsel contended that Hill was terminated because it lost funding and that keeping Hill would have created an undue hardship on the program., Hill was hired as an in-home counselor at a sober living home for women and children by the Asian American Drug Abuse Program on June 16, 2011. Her duties included waking with her clients and their children, helping them get ready for the day, driving clients to treatment at the program’s outpatient facility, driving them back to the house, making dinner or helping the clients make dinner, driving clients to Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and driving them home, all the while attending to her clients and files in between duties. She alleged that during that time, she sometimes worked 24-hour days for five days a week and, other times, worked 24-hour days two days per week. Hill claimed that she suffered from emotional distress as a result of her termination and that her existing major depressive disorder was worsened by the termination. The plaintiff’s psychology expert opined that Hill’s major depressive disorder’s trajectory and severity were worsened because of the termination. Thus, Hill sought recovery of compensatory damages as a result of the loss of her job and her emotional pain and suffering. She also sought recovery of punitive damages, alleging that the Asian American Drug Abuse Program acted with malice, oppression or fraud. The defense’s psychiatry expert disagreed with the plaintiff’s psychology expert and offered different potential stressors/scenarios that could have been the cause of the worsening of Hill’s alleged major depressive disorder. However, plaintiff’s counsel noted that the defense’s expert incorrectly attacked the plaintiff’s expert’s alleged assumption that the termination caused the major depressive disorder, but that the plaintiff’s expert never actually opined that and that this was brought out during both sides’ experts’ examinations.