In June 2018, plaintiff Pauline Medina, an office manager and lead administrator for city of Los Angeles Council Member Jose Huizar, resigned from her position. Medina previously complained about alleged violations of ethics rules and laws. She also complained about Huizar allegedly giving preferential treatment to another staffer with whom he was allegedly having an extramarital affair. Medina claimed that she was retaliated against for making the complaints and that as a result, she was forced to resign. Medina sued Huizar and the city of Los Angeles. Medina alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted workplace harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of the Labor Code. Following meet-and-confer communications with the defendants, Medina voluntarily dismissed her causes of action against the city regarding the alleged constructive discharge and whistleblower retaliation claims under the Labor Code. In addition, Huizar was only named in the disability harassment claim, but Huizar’s counsel argued that Medina admitted during her deposition that Huizar never made any discriminatory comments and that Medina acknowledged that she had excessive absences. As a result, Huizar’s counsel filed a motion for summary judgment, and Huizar was ultimately dismissed from the case while the motion was pending. Thus, the matter only continued with Medina’s claim regarding the city’s failure to prevent harassment. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that after Medina made complaints about Huizar and his office’s alleged violations of state, local and federal law, as well as made complaints about the preferential treatment, Medina was stripped of certain duties and responsibilities that she had previously held, removed Medina’s access to Huizar’s calendar and subjected Medina to unreasonable criticism of her work. Medina claimed that due to other staffers coming to her with their own complaints about the preferential treatment, she suffered anxiety, muscle pains and panic attacks, and had to take time off from work. However, she claimed that even though her treating physician recommended that she take a medical leave of absence from work, which she did, Huizar reported her to the city’s personnel department in order to instigate an audit of her attendance and that when she returned to work, she was given a task normally delegated to student interns. Medina alleged that the newly assigned tasks, which consisted of moving heavy boxes and other similar jobs, caused to sustain an injury, so she had to take another medical leave, and that she ultimately resigned after that injury. The city’s counsel denied Medina’s contentions, asserting that the city had legitimate business reasons for its actions based upon Medina’s performance and the needs of the office. Counsel also contended that Medina voluntarily resigned., Medina claimed that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the workplace harassment and other staffers coming to her with their own complaints. She underwent counseling as a result of her alleged condition. Medina sought recovery of lost earnings and damages for her emotional pain and suffering. The city’s counsel contended that Medina voluntarily resigned and suffered no damages.