In April 2010, plaintiff Maram Alaiwat, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Public Families of Alameda for Multi-Cultural/Multi-Lingual Education Charter School (FAME), which is chartered through the Alameda County Office of Education, began receiving threats and demeaning/derogatory comments of not remembering “her place” as a result of her disagreeing with several board members’ alleged requests for personal favors, including staff adjustments to accommodate their own personal agendas. One month prior, on March 10, 2010, FAME’s charter was renewed by the Alameda County Office of Education, following an investigation into the management of FAME and potential fiscal impropriety by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors’ commissioned Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team, which provided suggestions and guidance to have FAME come into line, in accounting and board conduct, with its large size. All recommendations were implemented by FAME by the end of 2010. However, Alaiwat claimed that within approximately one month of FAME receiving its charter renewal, board members began requesting personal favors, including staff adjustments to accommodate their own personal agendas, such as securing and retaining their own daughters’ positions in the school. Alaiwat claimed that when she disagreed with the requests, she was met with hostility, threats and demeaning/derogatory comments of not remembering “her place.” She claimed that as a result, she complained to the board, asking that the members stop the derogatory and offensive conduct, but that she was met with further hostility. In September 2010, Alaiwat filed a formal Uniform Complaint against two particular board members, claiming that each time she raised concerns to the board she was met with hostility and exposed to derogatory comments, such as being referred to as a “little girl” or being told to “let the men handle things.” Ultimately, the board hired Oracle Investigations Group in late September 2010 to begin an investigation into Alaiwat’s complaints. Many of Alaiwat’s claims were corroborated, as were some claims against her, which included claims of Alaiwat managing through fear and intimidation. Alaiwat claimed that as a result, she was retaliated against in the form of her duties and responsibilities being taken away, but that the harassment against her continued. In July 2011, Alaiwat was removed from the supervisory authority as CEO, as confirmed by FAME’s organizational chart, with Naeem Malik, the new board president of FAME, deciding to transferring the position to other employees. By September 2011, a new job description was drafted for Alaiwat, in which she was slated with the role of finding funding for the school. On Dec. 9, 2011, FAME, through Malik (who was announced as the new CEO on Dec. 6, 2011), placed Alaiwat on administrative leave, claiming insubordination. Alaiwat claimed that for the next four months, she was provided no reason for having been placed on administrative leave, but that she was still asked, and expected, to assist in school matters, including continuing her efforts to obtain funding for the survival of the school. Alaiwat claimed she continued to help as best she could, to ensure the survival and viability of the school she founded, only to continue to be met with hostility and untrue claims of not being cooperative. She also claimed she was provided different and conflicting instructions, and, thereafter, blamed for the issues that arose as a result. On April 20, 2012, Alaiwat informed FAME that she understood the board’s actions to amount to her having been terminated from her employment without cause. FAME responded by sending Alaiwat a letter, informing her that she had not been terminated, but that it was the school’s intent to terminate her. FAME ultimately provided Alaiwat with a Notice of Intent to terminate her employment, which included charges against her. Alaiwat was informed of her official termination on May 10, 2012. Alaiwat sued FAME and the originally named/chartered entity, Bay Area School for Independent Study Inc. Alaiwat alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a breach of an employment contract; a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; harassment, resulting in a hostile work environment; retaliation; defamation; and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that Alaiwat founded FAME in 2005, when it was originally known and chartered as Bay Area School for Independent Study Inc., and that Alaiwat was employed as both founder and CEO for the better part of her tenure. Her employment was governed by an employment agreement executed between Alaiwat and the board, with the last agreement executed on Dec. 12, 2008, and ratified in June 2010. Counsel also noted that Alaiwat’s agreement provided for a four-year term of employment as Executive Director “with renewal of this agreement being automatic if the charter was renewed,” which it was on March 10, 2010, by the Alameda County Office of Education. Thus, counsel contended that Alaiwat’s employment agreement was extended to June 30, 2015, with the concurrent approval of the board. Alaiwat claimed that for the better part of her career with FAME, she was able to work successfully, not only with the board members, but her staff. She also claimed she was considered an invaluable employee and served as the head of the school. Alaiwat further claimed that she was a primary reason for FAME’s quick and significant growth from a school of approximately 800 students to 1,600 students in the matter of a few years. In addition, she claimed she spent her time trying to work with a large and diverse staff, as well as an all-male board, and worked collaboratively with a primary goal of seeing FAME succeed. However, Alaiwat alleged that after she became vocal about what she observed to be illegal or conflicting conduct by the board, and complained about the treatment she was receiving, board members began a campaign to not only strip her of her authority — so as to stop her from questioning their decisions — but to seek individuals to file complaints against her for a myriad of unfounded claims. She also alleged that after she filed a formal Uniform Complaint, the hostile work environment only increased. Alaiwat specifically claimed that soon after Malik ascended to the rank of president, she knew from Malik’s actions that her hope for a new start and a response to her complaints would not occur. She also claimed that when new female board members voiced their oppositions to Malik’s treatment of them as women, and to Malik making unilateral decisions for FAME without board approval or, at times, without its knowledge, the new female members were ousted shortly after their placement on the board. Alaiwat further claimed that Malik unilaterally decided to transfer her CEO position to other employees without board approval or vote, and in violation of her employment agreement. Alaiwat alleged that, ironically, she was then slated with the role of finding funding for the school, as the board’s efforts to do so without her involvement had failed. Furthermore, Alaiwat claimed that when she was placed on administrative leave on Dec. 9, 2011, the notice given to her listed the reason as generic insubordination with no details about what that claim was based on. She contended that the allegations made by the board or at the board’s insistence to justify her termination were issues already dealt with and found to have no merit, as they were found to be false or exaggerated. Thus, Alaiwat alleged that Malik was the individual principally responsible for putting together the notice to terminate and that the board members who voted did so based on what they believed to be truthful and accurate evidence justifying their vote to terminate her, which was not the case. In addition, Alaiwat claimed she attempted to submit a 20-page rebuttal and hundreds of pages of evidence to the board on the day of the meeting held to decide her fate, but that due to a lack of time, she was unable to have the response served on all board members prior to the meeting and faced technical issues with her effort to e-mail the hundreds of pages before the meeting. She alleged that as a result, she requested a postponement of the meeting to ensure that all relevant information was provided and that sufficient time be given to all the board members, some of whom she had never met, but that her request was denied. Defense counsel argued that Alaiwat was terminated for good cause under her Employment Agreement, thus dismissing any other claims. Counsel contended that Alaiwat’s conduct and mismanagement of the school was more than enough good cause to terminate her employment and that the decision was not based on any retaliatory or discriminatory animus. Board members, who had allegedly never worked with Alaiwat, claimed that their decision to terminate Alaiwat was done in good faith based on the information provided to them by FAME. Based on these facts, defense counsel argued that FAME’s conduct did not amount to illegal conduct and that Alaiwat’s termination was proper., Plaintiff’s counsel presented the jury with two scenarios for awarding damages, with specific amounts provided. In scenario 1, plaintiff’s counsel argued that if the jury found there was a breach of the employment contract than Alaiwat was entitled to a severance consisting of $360,000 in past lost earnings, $155,600 in past lost benefits, $220,000 in future lost earnings, $155,600 in future lost benefits, and $365,000 in past emotional distress damages. In scenario 2, plaintiff’s counsel argued that if the jury did not find there was a breach of the employment contract than the jury should award Alaiwat based on her Fair Employment and Housing Act claims. Counsel contended that under the second scenario, Alaiwat should be awarded $237,602 in past lost earnings, $155,600 in past lost benefits, $220,000 in future lost earnings, $155,600 in future lost benefits, and $365,000 in past emotional distress damages. Alaiwat also sought recovery of punitive damages, alleging that Malik acted maliciously and that the board ratified his conduct. Defense counsel asked the jury to award no damages, asserting that Alaiwat was not entitled to any recovery, as there was no liability against the charter school.