On Jan. 20, 2010, plaintiff Lilia Macias, 46, a customer service representative for The Wella Corp., started a leave of absence, due to an on-the-job injury to her right arm. After approximately 10 months, she returned to work with a restriction of 45 minutes of typing and 15 minutes of alternative work. On Aug. 26, 2011, Macias had a relapse and took another leave. She then requested a meeting in December 2011, to discuss the possibility of her returning to work, as her physician stated that Macias could return to work with the previous restriction of 45/15. Macias claimed that her employers told her to stay off work until further notice. When Macias did not hear back from them, she sent the Human Resources Department a certified letter requesting a return to work on April 18, 2012. However, she still did not receive a response. Macias ultimately resigned her employment in August 2012 as a condition of settling her workers’ compensation case regarding her prior on-the-job injury. Macias sued her employers, Procter & Gamble Co., and its subsidiary, The Wella Corp. Marcia alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted disability discrimination. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. Macias claimed that when she attempted to return to work, she was told to hold off from returning until further notice, but that she heard no response from either her employers or the Human Resources Department. She also claimed that the defendants demanded that she resign her employment as a condition of settling her worker’s compensation case, forcing her to resign in August 2012. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that both Procter & Gamble Co. and The Wella Corp. violated Government Code § 12940(m) by failing to accommodate Macias’ disability and § 12940(n) by failing to engage in an interactive process to attempt an accommodation. Plaintiff’s counsel also contended that Macias’ resignation did not affect her rights via Cloud v. Casey (1999) (76 Cal app 4th 895, 908), and argued that internal documents indicated that the defendants never intended to have Macias return to work. Defense counsel argued that Macias’ disability precluded her ability to do her job and that by resigning, Macias waived her rights., Macias claimed she suffered emotional distress as a result of not being able to return to work. Thus, she sought recovery of damages for emotional distress as well as recovery of her lost earnings.